We believe that our claims and defenses in matters in which we are a defendant are substantial, but litigation is inherently unpredictable and excessive verdicts do occur. We do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on our financial position. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid.

We have accrued for losses that are both probable and reasonably estimable. Substantially all of our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties and, therefore, determining the likelihood of a loss and/or the measurement of any loss can be complex. Consequently, we are unable to estimate the range of reasonably possible loss in excess of amounts accrued. Our assessments are based on estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may prove to be incomplete or inaccurate, and unanticipated events and circumstances may occur that might cause us to change those estimates and assumptions.

The principal pending matters to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether a pending matter is a principal matter, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors in order to assess materiality, such as, among other things, the amount of damages and the nature of any other relief sought in the proceeding, if such damages and other relief are specified; our view of the merits of the claims and of the strength of our defenses; whether the action purports to be, or is, a class action and, if not certified, our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; whether related actions have been transferred to multidistrict litigation; any experience that we or, to our knowledge, other companies have had in similar proceedings; whether disclosure of the action would be important to a reader of our financial statements, including whether disclosure might change a reader’s judgment about our financial statements in light of all of the information that is available to the reader; the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation; and the extent of public interest in the matter. In addition, with respect to patent matters in which we are the plaintiff, we consider, among other things, the financial significance of the product protected by the patent(s) at issue. As a result of considering qualitative factors in our determination of principal matters, there are some matters discussed below with respect to which management believes that the likelihood of possible loss in excess of amounts accrued is remote.

Like other pharmaceutical companies, we are involved in numerous suits relating to our patents, including but not limited to, those discussed below. Most of the suits involve claims by generic drug manufacturers that patents covering our products, processes or dosage forms are invalid and/or do not cover the product of the generic drug manufacturer. Also, counterclaims, as well as various independent actions, have been filed alleging that our assertions of, or attempts to enforce, patent rights with respect to certain products constitute unfair competition and/or violations of antitrust laws. In addition to the challenges to the U.S. patents on a number of our products that are discussed below, patent rights to certain of our products are being challenged in various other jurisdictions. We are also party to patent damages suits in various jurisdictions pursuant to which generic drug manufacturers, payers, governments or other parties are seeking damages from us for allegedly causing delay of generic entry. Additionally, our licensing and collaboration partners face challenges by generic drug manufacturers to patents covering products for which we have licenses or co-promotion rights. We also are often involved in other proceedings, such as inter partes review, post-grant review, re-examination or opposition proceedings, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the European Patent Office, or other foreign counterparts relating to our intellectual property or the intellectual property rights of others. Also, if one of our patents is found to be invalid by such proceedings, generic or competitive products could be introduced into the market resulting in the erosion of sales of our existing products. For example, several of the patents in our pneumococcal vaccine portfolio were challenged in inter partes review and post-grant review proceedings in the U.S. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board refused to initiate proceedings as to two patents. In June 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ruled on another patent, holding that one claim was valid and that all other claims were invalid. The party challenging that patent has appealed the decision. In March and June 2019, an additional patent was found invalid in separate proceedings by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. We have appealed. Challenges to other patents remain pending in jurisdictions outside the U.S. The invalidation of all of the patents in our pneumococcal portfolio could potentially allow a competitor pneumococcal vaccine into the marketplace. In the event that any of the patents are found valid and infringed, a competitor pneumococcal vaccine

might be prohibited from entering the market or required to pay Pfizer a royalty. We are also subject to patent litigation pursuant to which one or more third parties seeks damages and/or injunctive relief to compensate for alleged infringement of its patents by our commercial or other activities. For example, our Hospira subsidiaries are involved in patent and patent-related disputes over their attempts to bring generic pharmaceutical and biosimilar products to market. If one of our marketed products is found to infringe valid patent rights of a third party, such third party may be awarded significant damages, or we may be prevented from further sales of that product. Such damages may be enhanced as much as three-fold in the event that we or one of our subsidiaries, like Hospira, is found to have willfully infringed valid patent rights of a third party.

In December 2016, Wyeth LLC, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals Inc., and PF Prism C.V. (collectively, the Wyeth Group) brought a patent-infringement action against Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd, Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, Alembic), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, Sun), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Alembic and Sun, each seeking approval to market generic versions of bosutinib. Alembic is challenging a patent covering polymorphic forms of bosutinib, which expires in 2026, and a patent covering methods of treating chronic myelogenous leukemia, which expires in 2025. Sun is also challenging the same patent covering polymorphic forms of bosutinib that expires in 2026. In March 2017, the Wyeth Group brought a patent-infringement action against MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, MSN), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA by MSN, seeking approval to market a generic version of bosutinib, and challenging a patent expiring in 2026 covering polymorphic forms of bosutinib. In September 2017, the case against MSN was dismissed. Also, in September 2017, the Wyeth Group brought an additional patent-infringement action against Sun in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of two other patents challenged by Sun, covering compositions of bosutinib and methods of treating chronic myelogenous leukemia, each of which expire in 2025. In October 2019, we settled the cases against each of Alembic and Sun on terms not material to Pfizer.

In June 2014, Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. (Ben Venue) notified our subsidiary, Hospira, that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Hospira’s premix version of Precedex and containing allegations that a patent related to the use of Precedex in an intensive care unit setting, which expired in March 2019, was invalid or not infringed. In August 2014, Hospira and Orion Corporation (co-owner of the patent that is the subject of the lawsuit) filed suit against Ben Venue, Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC (Hikma), and West-Ward Pharmaceutical Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the validity and infringement of the patent. In October 2014, Eurohealth International Sarl was substituted for Ben Venue and Hikma. In June 2016, this case was settled on terms not material to Pfizer.

In June 2015, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Amneal) notified Hospira that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Hospira’s premix version of Precedex and containing allegations that four patents relating to the Precedex premix formulations and their use, all of which expire in 2032, were invalid or not infringed. In August 2015, Hospira filed suit against Amneal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the validity and infringement of the patents that are the subject of the lawsuit. In January 2018, the District Court ruled that one of the four patents was valid and infringed, and that the other three patents were invalid. In February and March 2018, respectively, each of Amneal and Hospira appealed the District Court decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In January 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.

In December 2015, Fresenius Kabi USA LLC (Fresenius) notified Hospira that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Hospira’s premix version of Precedex and containing allegations that certain patents relating to the Precedex premix formulations and their use, all of which expire in 2032, were invalid or not infringed. In January 2016, Hospira filed suit against Fresenius in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, asserting the validity and infringement of those patents. In December 2018, the District Court ruled that the asserted patents were invalid. Hospira has appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

patents relating to the Precedex premix formulations and their use, all of which expire in 2032, were invalid or not infringed. In September 2016, Hospira filed suit against Par in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the validity and infringement of the patents that are the subject of the lawsuit. In December 2016, the case was stayed pending the outcome of Hospira’s suit against Amneal (including all appeals). In February 2019, a new stay was entered, extending the stay until the outcome of the appeal in the Fresenius case.

In December 2017, Gland Pharma Limited (Gland) notified Hospira that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Hospira’s premix version of Precedex and containing allegations that six patents relating to the Precedex premix formulations and their use, all of which expire in 2032, were invalid or not infringed. In February 2018, Hospira filed suit against Gland in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the validity and infringement of four patents that are the subject of the lawsuit. The case against Gland has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Fresenius case.

In December 2017, Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd. (Hengrui) notified Hospira that it had filed an abbreviated new drug application with the FDA seeking approval to market a generic version of Hospira’s premix version of Precedex and containing allegations that six patents relating to the Precedex premix formulations and their use, all of which expire in 2032, were invalid or not infringed. In February 2018, Hospira filed suit against Hengrui in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the validity and infringement of four patents that are the subject of the lawsuit. The case against Hengrui has been stayed pending the outcome of the appeal in the Fresenius case.

In February 2018, Baxter Healthcare Corporation (Baxter) filed a declaratory judgment action against Hospira in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking a declaration of non-infringement of four patents relating to the Precedex premix formulations and their use. One of the patents included in the action related to the use of Precedex in an intensive care unit setting and expired in 2019 and the other three patents expire in 2032. In March 2018, Hospira filed a counterclaim for infringement of the patent that expired in 2019. In November 2018, the case was dismissed by mutual agreement of the parties.

Separately, also in February 2017, we brought a patent-infringement action against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Sun Ltd.) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of our patent covering a polymorphic form of tofacitinib, expiring in 2023, that was challenged by Sun Ltd. in its abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 11 mg extended release tablets. In November 2017, we brought an additional patent-infringement action against Sun Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of another patent challenged by Sun Ltd., which covers the active ingredient and expires in December 2025. In October 2018, we brought a third patent infringement action against Sun Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of our patent covering the extended release formulation of tofacitinib, which expires in 2034. In March and April 2019, the actions against Sun Ltd. were dismissed by mutual agreement of the parties.

In March 2017, we brought a patent-infringement action against Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, Zydus) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of three patents: the patent covering the active ingredient expiring in December 2025, the patent covering an enantiomer of tofacitinib expiring in 2022, and the patent covering a polymorphic form of tofacitinib expiring in 2023, which Zydus challenged in its abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 5 mg tablets.

Also, in March 2017, we brought separate actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc., Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Huahai US Inc. and Solco Healthcare US, LLC (collectively, Prinston) and against Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., Pensa Pharma S.A. and Laboratorios Del Dr. Esteve, S.A. (collectively, Breckenridge) on the two patents expiring in 2022 and 2023, respectively, that were challenged by Prinston and Breckenridge in their respective abbreviated new drug applications seeking approval to market generic versions of tofacitinib 5 mg tablets. In October 2017, we brought an additional patent-infringement action against Breckenridge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of four additional patents challenged by Breckenridge, three of which expire in December 2020 and one of which expires in December 2025. In March 2018, we brought another patent infringement action against Prinston in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of an additional patent, which had been subsequently challenged by Prinston and which expires in

In March 2019, we brought a separate patent infringement action against Ajanta Pharma Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, Ajanta) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting the infringement and validity of two patents: the patent covering the active ingredient that expires in December 2025 and the patent covering a polymorphic form of tofacitinib that expires in 2023, each of which Ajanta challenged in its abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of tofacitinib 5 mg tablets.

In September 2018, several generic companies notified us that they had filed abbreviated new drug applications with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Kerydin. The generic companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of methods of use and formulation patents for tavaborole that expire in 2026 and 2027, including pediatric exclusivity. In October 2018, Anacor, our wholly-owned subsidiary, filed infringement lawsuits against each of the generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia.

In March 2019, several generic companies notified us that they had filed abbreviated new drug applications with the FDA seeking approval to market generic versions of Ibrance. The generic companies assert the invalidity and non-infringement of two composition of matter patents and a method of use patent covering palbociclib, each of which expire in 2023. In April 2019, we brought patent infringement actions against each of the generic filers in various federal courts, asserting the validity and infringement of the patents challenged by the generic companies.

In December 2016, Medivation and Medivation Prostate Therapeutics, Inc. (collectively, the Medivation Group); Astellas Pharma Inc., Astellas US LLC and Astellas Pharma US, Inc. (collectively, Astellas); and The Regents of the University of California filed patent-infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. and Actavis LLC (collectively, Actavis); Zydus; and Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively, Apotex) in connection with those companies’ respective abbreviated new drug applications filed with the FDA for approval to market generic versions of enzalutamide. The generic manufacturers are challenging patents, which expire as early as 2026, covering enzalutamide and treatments for prostate cancer. In May 2017, the Medivation Group filed a patent-infringement suit against Roxane Laboratories Inc. (Roxane) in the same court in connection with Roxane’s abbreviated new drug application with the FDA for approval to market a generic version of enzalutamide. In 2018 and 2019, we settled all pending claims against the various generic challengers on terms not material to Pfizer.

In February, March, and April 2017, twenty-five generic companies sent BMS Paragraph-IV certification letters informing BMS that they had filed abbreviated new drug applications seeking approval of generic versions of Eliquis, challenging the validity and infringement of one or more of the three patents listed in the Orange Book for Eliquis. The patents currently are set to expire in 2019, 2026, and 2031. Eliquis has been jointly developed and is being commercialized by BMS and Pfizer. In April 2017, BMS and Pfizer filed patent-infringement actions against all generic filers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and the U.S. District Court for the District of West Virginia, asserting that each of the generic companies’ proposed products would infringe each of the patent(s) that each generic filer challenged. Some generic filers challenged only the 2031

In March 2015, Janssen and New York University, together, brought a patent-infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Hospira, Celltrion Healthcare Co. Ltd. and Celltrion Inc. alleging that infliximab-dyyb, to be marketed by Hospira in the U.S. under the brand name Inflectra, would infringe six patents relating to infliximab, its manufacture and use. Claims with respect to four of the patents were dismissed by the plaintiffs, leaving two patents at issue: the infliximab antibody patent and a patent relating to cell culture media. In January 2018, the antibody patent was declared invalid by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In July 2018, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and ruled that the patent relating to cell culture media was not infringed. Janssen appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Between 1967 and 1982, Warner-Lambert owned American Optical Corporation (American Optical), which manufactured and sold respiratory protective devices and asbestos safety clothing. In connection with the sale of American Optical in 1982, Warner-Lambert agreed to indemnify the purchaser for certain liabilities, including certain asbestos-related and other claims. As of September 29, 2019, approximately 46,500 claims naming American Optical and numerous other defendants were pending in various federal and state courts seeking damages for alleged personal injury from exposure to asbestos and other allegedly hazardous materials. Warner-Lambert was acquired by Pfizer in 2000 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer. Warner-Lambert is actively engaged in the defense of, and will continue to explore various means of resolving, these claims.

Beginning in May 2011, actions, including purported class actions, were filed in various federal courts against Wyeth and, in certain of the actions, affiliates of Wyeth and certain other defendants relating to Effexor XR, which is the extended-release formulation of Effexor. The plaintiffs in each of the class actions seek to represent a class consisting of all persons in the U.S. and its territories who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR from any of the defendants from June 14, 2008 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased. The plaintiffs in all of the actions allege delay in the launch of generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories, in violation of federal antitrust laws and, in certain of the actions, the antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws of certain states, as the result of Wyeth fraudulently obtaining and improperly listing certain patents for Effexor XR in the Orange Book, enforcing certain patents for Effexor XR and entering into a litigation settlement agreement with a generic drug manufacturer with respect to Effexor XR. Each of the plaintiffs seeks treble damages (for itself in the individual actions or on behalf of the putative class in the purported class actions) for alleged price overcharges for Effexor XR or generic Effexor XR in the U.S. and its territories since June 14, 2008. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In October 2014, the District Court dismissed the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims based on the litigation settlement agreement, but declined to dismiss the other direct purchaser plaintiff claims. In January 2015, the District Court entered partial final judgments as to all settlement agreement claims, including those asserted by direct purchasers and end-payer plaintiffs, which plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court.

Beginning in November 2011, purported class actions relating to Lipitor were filed in various federal courts against, among others, Pfizer, certain affiliates of Pfizer, and, in most of the actions, Ranbaxy, Inc. (Ranbaxy) and certain affiliates of Ranbaxy. The plaintiffs in these various actions seek to represent nationwide, multi-state or statewide classes consisting of persons or entities who directly purchased, indirectly purchased or reimbursed patients for the purchase of Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) from any of the defendants from March 2010 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct (the Class Period). The plaintiffs allege delay in the launch of generic Lipitor, in violation of federal antitrust laws and/or state antitrust, consumer protection and various other laws, resulting from (i) the 2008 agreement pursuant to which Pfizer and Ranbaxy settled certain patent litigation involving Lipitor, and Pfizer granted Ranbaxy a license to sell a generic version of Lipitor in various markets beginning on varying dates, and (ii) in certain of the actions, the procurement and/or enforcement of certain patents for Lipitor. Each of the actions seeks, among other things, treble damages on behalf of the putative class for alleged price overcharges for Lipitor (or, in certain of the actions, generic Lipitor) during the Class Period. In addition, individual actions have been filed against Pfizer, Ranbaxy and certain of their affiliates, among others, that assert claims and seek relief for the plaintiffs that are substantially similar to the claims asserted and the relief sought in the purported class actions described above. These various actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation MDL-2332) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.

In September 2013 and 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims by direct purchasers. In October and November 2014, the District Court dismissed with prejudice the claims of all other Multi-District Litigation plaintiffs. All plaintiffs have appealed the District Court’s orders dismissing their claims with prejudice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, the direct purchaser class plaintiffs appealed the order denying their motion to amend the judgment and for leave to amend their complaint to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In August 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s decisions and remanded the claims to the District Court.

In February 2014, the federal actions were transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Lipitor (Atorvastatin Calcium) Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation (No. II) MDL-2502) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Since 2016, certain cases in the Multi-District Litigation were remanded to certain state courts. In January 2017, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment, dismissing substantially all of the remaining cases pending in the Multi-District Litigation. In January 2017, the plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In June 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.

In April 2016, the federal actions were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In Re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2691) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In December 2016, federal actions filed against Lilly and filed against both us and Lilly, were transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to the Multi-District Litigation (In re: Viagra (Sildenafil Citrate) and Cialis (Tadalafil) Products Liability Litigation, MDL-2691).

Beginning in November 2016, purported class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Hospira, Hospira Worldwide, Inc. and certain other defendants relating to intravenous saline solution. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class consisting of all persons and entities in the U.S. who directly purchased intravenous saline solution sold by any of the defendants from January 1, 2013 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceases. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants’ conduct restricts output and artificially fixes, raises, maintains and/or stabilizes the prices of intravenous saline

solution sold throughout the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages (for themselves and on behalf of the putative classes) and an injunction against defendants for alleged price overcharges for intravenous saline solution in the U.S. since January 1, 2013. All of these actions have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In July 2018, the District Court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint without prejudice. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in September 2018. On February 3, 2017, we completed the sale of our global infusion systems net assets, HIS, which includes intravenous saline solution, to ICU Medical. The litigation is the subject of cross-claims for indemnification by both Pfizer and ICU Medical under the purchase agreement.

A certified consumer class action is pending against Wyeth in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California based on the alleged off-label marketing of its hormone therapy products. The case was originally filed in December 2003. The class consists of California consumers who purchased Wyeth’s hormone-replacement products between January 1995 and January 2003 and who do not seek personal injury damages therefrom. The class seeks compensatory and punitive damages, including a full refund of the purchase price.

Beginning in February 2017, purported class actions were filed in various federal courts by indirect purchasers of EpiPen against Pfizer, and/or its affiliates King and Meridian, and/or various entities affiliated with Mylan, and Mylan Chief Executive Officer, Heather Bresch. The plaintiffs in these actions seek to represent U.S. nationwide classes comprising persons or entities who paid for any portion of the end-user purchase price of an EpiPen between 2009 until the cessation of the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct. In August 2017, a similar lawsuit brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of a purported class of direct purchaser plaintiffs against Pfizer, King, Meridian and Mylan was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Against Pfizer and/or its affiliates, plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer’s and/or its affiliates’ settlement of patent litigation regarding EpiPen delayed market entry of generic EpiPen in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state antitrust or consumer protection laws. At least one lawsuit also alleges that Pfizer and/or Mylan violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. Plaintiffs also filed various consumer protection and unjust enrichment claims against, and relating to conduct attributable solely to, Mylan and/or its affiliates regarding EpiPen. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for EpiPen since 2009. In August 2017, the actions were consolidated for coordinated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation (In re: EpiPen (Epinephrine Injection, USP) Marketing, Sales Practices and Antitrust Litigation, MDL-2785) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with other EpiPen-related actions against Mylan and/or its affiliates to which Pfizer, King and Meridian are not parties.

A number of individual and multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been filed against Pfizer, certain of its subsidiaries and/or other pharmaceutical manufacturers in various federal and state courts alleging that the plaintiffs developed kidney-related injuries purportedly as a result of the ingestion of certain proton pump inhibitors. The cases against Pfizer involve Protonix and/or Nexium 24HR and seek compensatory and punitive damages and, in some cases, treble damages, restitution or disgorgement. In August 2017, the federal actions were ordered transferred for coordinated pre-trial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re: Proton-Pump Inhibitor Products Liability Litigation (No. II)) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 31, 2019, we completed the transaction in which we and GSK combined our respective consumer healthcare businesses into a new consumer healthcare joint venture that operates globally under the GSK Consumer Healthcare name. As part of the joint venture transaction, the joint venture has agreed to assume, and to indemnify Pfizer for, liabilities arising out of such litigation to the extent related to Nexium 24HR.

Beginning in March 2019, purported class actions relating to Humira and adalimumab biosimilars were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against AbbVie Inc. (AbbVie), certain affiliates of AbbVie, and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. Pfizer is a named defendant in three of the actions. The plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide and multi-state classes consisting of persons and/or entities who are indirect purchasers of Humira from January 1, 2017 until the allegedly unlawful antitrust effects cease. Against Pfizer, the plaintiffs generally allege that Pfizer’s and AbbVie’s 2018 licensing agreements, resolving all global intellectual property matters for Pfizer’s proposed adalimumab biosimilar, delayed market entry of Pfizer’s biosimilar product in the U.S. in violation of federal antitrust laws, various state antitrust or consumer protection laws, and unjust enrichment laws. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and treble damages for alleged overcharges for Humira since 2017. In August 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint that superseded the prior complaints and does not name Pfizer as a defendant. As a result, Pfizer is no longer a party to the case.

Pfizer, certain of its subsidiaries and other pharmaceutical manufacturers were sued in various state courts by a number of states alleging that the defendants provided average wholesale price (AWP) information for certain of their products that was higher than the actual average prices at which those products were sold. The AWP is used to determine reimbursement levels under Medicare Part B and Medicaid and in many private-sector insurance policies and medical plans. All but one of those actions have been resolved through settlement, dismissal or final judgment. The plaintiff state, Illinois, in the one remaining action, claims that the alleged spread between the AWPs at which purchasers were reimbursed and the actual sale prices was promoted by the defendants as an incentive to purchase certain of their products. The action alleges, among other things, fraud and violation of the state’s unfair trade practices and consumer protection statutes and seeks monetary and other relief, including civil penalties and treble damages. In September 2019, we settled the remaining action on terms not material to Pfizer. All actions have now been resolved through settlement, dismissal or final judgment.

In 1997, Monsanto Company (Former Monsanto) contributed certain chemical manufacturing operations and facilities to a newly formed corporation, Solutia Inc. (Solutia), and spun off the shares of Solutia. In 2000, Former Monsanto merged with Pharmacia & Upjohn Company to form Pharmacia. Pharmacia then transferred its agricultural operations to a newly created subsidiary, named Monsanto Company (New Monsanto), which it spun off in a two-stage process that was completed in 2002. Pharmacia was acquired by Pfizer in 2003 and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Pfizer.

In connection with its spin-off in 1997, Solutia assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, liabilities related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses. As the result of its reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Solutia’s indemnification obligations relating to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses are primarily limited to sites that Solutia has owned or operated. In addition, in connection with its spinoff that was completed in 2002, New Monsanto assumed, and agreed to indemnify Pharmacia for, any liabilities primarily related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, including, but not limited to, any such liabilities that Solutia assumed. Solutia’s and New Monsanto’s assumption of, and agreement to indemnify Pharmacia for, these liabilities apply to pending actions and any future actions related to Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses in which Pharmacia is named as a defendant, including, without limitation, actions asserting environmental claims, including alleged exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls. Solutia and/or New Monsanto are defending Pharmacia in connection with various claims and litigation arising out of, or related to, Former Monsanto’s chemical businesses, and have been indemnifying Pharmacia when liability has been imposed or settlement has been reached regarding such claims and litigation.

Also, in 2009, we submitted a revised site-wide feasibility study with regard to Wyeth Holdings Corporation’s (formerly, American Cyanamid Company) discontinued industrial chemical facility in Bound Brook, New Jersey. In July 2011, Wyeth Holdings Corporation finalized an Administrative Settlement Agreement with the EPA and Order on Consent for Removal Action (the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement) with the EPA with regard to the Bound Brook facility. In May 2012, we completed construction of an interim remedy to address the discharge of impacted groundwater from that facility to the Raritan River. In September 2012, the EPA issued a final remediation plan for the Bound Brook facility’s main plant area, which is generally in accordance with one of the remedies evaluated in our revised site-wide feasibility study. In March 2013, Wyeth Holdings Corporation (now Wyeth Holdings LLC) entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to allow us to undertake detailed engineering design of the remedy for the main plant area and to perform a focused feasibility study for two adjacent lagoons. In September 2015, the U.S., on behalf of the EPA, filed a complaint and consent decree with the federal District Court for the District of New Jersey that allows Wyeth Holdings LLC to complete the design and to implement the remedy for the main plant area. In December 2015, the consent decree (which supersedes the 2011 Administrative Settlement Agreement) was entered by the District Court. In September 2018, the EPA issued a final remediation plan for the two adjacent lagoons, which is generally in accordance with one of the remedies evaluated in our focused feasibility study, and in September 2019, Wyeth Holdings LLC entered into an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent with the EPA to allow us to undertake detailed engineering design of the remedy for the lagoons. We have accrued for the estimated costs of the site remedies for the North Haven and Bound Brook facilities.

In October 2017, a number of United States service members, civilians, and their families brought a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against a number of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies, including Pfizer and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging that the defendants violated the United States Anti-Terrorism Act. The complaint alleges that the defendants provided funding for terrorist organizations through their sales practices pursuant to pharmaceutical and medical device contracts with the Iraqi Ministry of Health, and seeks monetary relief. In July 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice requested documents related to this matter, which are being provided.

In August 2018, Pfizer was named as a defendant in a third-party complaint for indemnity, along with King, filed by Allergan Finance LLC (Allergan) in a Multi-District Litigation (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation MDL 2804) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The lawsuit asserted claims for indemnity related to Kadian, which was owned for a short period by King in 2008, prior to Pfizer's acquisition of King in 2010. In December 2018, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit. In February 2019, Allergan filed a similar complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, asserting claims for indemnity related to Kadian.

Like other pharmaceutical companies, we are subject to extensive regulation by government agencies in the U.S., other developed markets and multiple emerging markets in which we operate. As a result, we have interactions with government agencies on an ongoing basis. Criminal charges, substantial fines and/or civil penalties, limitations on our ability to conduct business in applicable jurisdictions, corporate integrity or deferred prosecution agreements, as well as reputational harm and increased public interest in the matter could result from government investigations in the U.S. and other jurisdictions in which we do business. In addition, in a qui tam lawsuit in which the government declines to intervene, the relator may still pursue a suit for the recovery of civil damages and penalties on behalf of the government. Among the investigations by government agencies are the matters discussed below.

In 2012, Pfizer sold the U.K. Marketing Authorisation for phenytoin sodium capsules to a third party, but retained the right to supply the finished product to that third party. In May 2013, the U.K. Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) informed us that it had launched an investigation into the supply of phenytoin sodium capsules in the U.K. market. In August 2015, the CMA issued a Statement of Objections alleging that Pfizer and Pfizer Limited, a U.K. subsidiary, engaged in conduct that violates U.K. and EU antitrust laws. In December 2016, the CMA imposed a £84.2 million fine on Pfizer and Pfizer Limited. Pfizer appealed the CMA decision to The Competition Appeal Tribunal in February 2017. On June 7, 2018, the Competition

In April 2018, Greenstone received requests for information from the Antitrust Department of the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General. In May 2019, Attorneys General of more than 40 states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico filed a complaint against a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Greenstone and Pfizer. The matter has been consolidated with a Multi-District Litigation (In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation MDL No. 2724) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. As to Greenstone and Pfizer, the complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct in violation of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws.

In the ordinary course of business and in connection with the sale of assets and businesses and other transactions, we often indemnify our counterparties against certain liabilities that may arise in connection with the transaction or that are related to events and activities prior to or following a transaction. If the indemnified party were to make a successful claim pursuant to the terms of the indemnification, we may be required to reimburse the loss. These indemnifications are generally subject to various restrictions and limitations. Historically, we have not paid significant amounts under these provisions and, as of September 29, 2019, the estimated fair value of these indemnification obligations was not significant.

In addition, in connection with our entry into certain agreements, our counterparties agree to indemnify us. For example, our collaboration agreement with EMD Serono, Inc. to co-promote Rebif in the U.S. expired at the end of 2015 and included certain indemnity provisions. Patent litigation brought by Biogen Idec MA Inc. against EMD Serono Inc. and Pfizer is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. EMD Serono Inc. has acknowledged that it is obligated to satisfy any award of damages.

On February 7, 2019, we entered into an accelerated share repurchase agreement with GS&Co. to repurchase approximately $6.8 billion of our common stock. Pursuant to the terms of the agreement, on February 12, 2019, we paid approximately $6.8 billion to GS&Co. and received an initial delivery of approximately 130 million shares of our common stock from GS&Co., which represented, based on the closing price of our common stock on the NYSE on February 7, 2019, approximately 80% of the notional amount of the accelerated share repurchase agreement. On August 1, 2019, the accelerated share repurchase agreement with GS&Co. was completed, which, per the terms of the agreement, resulted in GS&Co. owing us a certain number of shares of Pfizer common stock. Pursuant to the agreement’s settlement terms, we received an additional 33.5 million shares of our common stock from GS&Co. on August 5, 2019. The average price paid for all of the shares delivered under the accelerated share repurchase agreement was $41.42 per share. The common stock received is included in Treasury stock. This agreement was entered into pursuant to our previously announced share repurchase authorization. After giving effect to the accelerated share repurchase agreement and other share repurchases through September 29, 2019, our remaining share-purchase authorization was approximately $5.3 billion on September 29, 2019.