Commitments and contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	NOTE 10 – Commitments and contingencies: Overview From time to time, Teva and/or its subsidiaries are subject to claims for damages and/or equitable relief arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as described below, in large part as a result of the nature of its business, Teva is frequently subject to litigation. Teva generally believes that it has meritorious defenses to the actions brought against it and vigorously pursues the defense or settlement of each such action. Teva records a provision in its consolidated financial statements to the extent that it concludes that a contingent liability is probable and the amount thereof is reasonably estimable. Except as noted below, no material provision has been made regarding any matter disclosed in this note, based upon the case status, management’s assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of legal counsel. Litigation outcomes and contingencies are unpredictable, and substantial damages or other relief may be awarded. Accordingly, management’s assessments involve complex judgments about future events and often rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Teva continuously reviews the matters described below and may, from time to time, remove a previously disclosed matter where the exposure was fully resolved in the prior year, or determined to no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure (including, in some circumstances, because such matter has been substantially resolved). If one or more of the legal proceedings described below were to result in final judgments against Teva, such judgments could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. In addition, Teva incurs significant legal fees and related expenses in the course of defending its positions, even if the facts and circumstances of a particular litigation do not give rise to a provision in the consolidated financial statements. In connection with certain agreements, Teva may, under certain circumstances, be required to indemnify, and may be indemnified by, in unspecified amounts, the parties to such agreements against third-party claims. Among other things, Teva’s agreements with such parties may require Teva to indemnify them, or require them to indemnify Teva, for the costs and damages incurred in connection with product liability claims. As further described below, Teva’s legal contingencies include, but are not limited to patent litigation, product liability, competition-related matters, government investigations, and litigations relating to pricing and marketing. Except as otherwise noted, all of the litigation matters disclosed involve claims arising in the United States, and all third-party sales figures given below are based on IQVIA data. Patent Litigation Teva is involved in patent litigation relating to the development, manufacture, and commercialization of pharmaceutical products, including proceedings under the Hatch-Waxman Act, Biologics Price and Competition Act, and comparable frameworks outside the United States. Such matters may involve claims of patent infringement, validity, or enforceability. In July 2014, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent directed to using carvedilol in a specified manner to decrease the risk of mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Teva began selling its carvedilol tablets (the generic version of GSK’s Coreg ® ) in September 2007. A jury returned a $235.5 million verdict in GSK’s favor, finding Teva liable for patent infringement in 2017. On February 9, 2026, Teva and GSK entered a settlement, and all pending litigation regarding this matter has been dismissed pursuant to that settlement. On April 30, 2018, Vanda sued Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of six Orang e-Book listed patents expiring between January 2033 and May 2034 related to Vanda’s Hetlioz ® . On May 10, 2023, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of four patents asserted by Vanda and held that one patent had not been infringed by Teva. In December 2022, Teva launched its tasimelteon product (the generic version of Hetlioz ® ). Vanda filed a second lawsuit, again asserting the infringement of certain patents related to Hetlioz ® that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Teva has counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Vanda’s patents. There is no trial date set for this second case. Should Teva be found liable for patent infringement, it could be subject to monetary damages and enjoined from further selling its tasimelteon product. Product Liability Litigation Teva is subject to product liability claims arising from the manufacture, distribution, and sale of pharmaceutical products, including claims related to alleged adverse events or product quality issues. Since July 2018, Teva and its subsidiaries have been parties to litigation relating to nitrosamine impurities allegedly found in the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) supplied to Teva by multiple API manufacturers. Teva is currently defending against nitrosamine claims related to its valsartan, losartan, metformin and ranitidine products, including in a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, related to valsartan and losartan. Another MDL is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida related to ranitidine, as well as several inactive cases in state courts. A previously-scheduled trial in the New Jersey MDL on valsartan-related claims made by certain third-party payers, has been postponed indefinitely, and discovery on the losartan-related claims pending against Teva in that same MDL has been paused indefinitely as well. There are also 229 valsartan-related personal injury cases pending against Teva in the New Jersey MDL, with bellwether trials expected no earlier than the first half of 2027. Certain generic manufacturers, including Teva, have also been named in state court actions brought by single plaintiffs asserting valsartan-related claims similar to those in the aforementioned New Jersey MDL. All such state court matters have been stayed, aside from a single case pending in New Jersey. Similar lawsuits are pending in Canada. The claims against Teva and other generic manufacturers in the ranitidine MDL have been dismissed on preemption and additional grounds and are currently under appeal in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Teva was also named in a consolidated proceeding pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey brought by individuals and end payors seeking economic damages on behalf of purported classes of consumers and end payors who purchased Teva’s and other generic manufacturers’ metformin products. In December 2024, Teva reached a settlement on this matter that resolved all of the plaintiffs’ claims against Teva and the settlement agreement is awaiting court approval. Teva has also been named as a defendant in product liability actions involving Paragard ® , an Intrauterine device (“IUD”) product that Teva divested to Cooper Surgical in 2017. These actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“MDL”). The first MDL bellwether trial concluded on February 3, 2026, with a defense verdict in Teva’s favor. In February 2026, the MDL Court entered an order scheduling the second bellwether trial to begin on September 28, 2026. There is also one Paragard case pending in state court in New Jersey. Competition Matters Teva is involved in antitrust and competition proceedings in various jurisdictions, including matters relating to patent settlements, pricing, marketing, and commercial practices. These proceedings may involve governmental authorities, private plaintiffs, or both. In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs filed claims against Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the U.S. antitrust laws in connection with their November 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving extended-release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR ® ). The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, a purported class of indirect purchasers and certain chain pharmacies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry. On August 19, 2025, the district court approved a settlement agreement between Teva and one group of plaintiffs (the indirect purchaser plaintiffs), while the case is proceeding with respect to the other plaintiffs. Annual sales of Effexor XR ® were approximately $2.6 billion at the time of settlement and at the time Teva launched its generic version of Effexor XR ® in July 2010. In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed claims against GSK and Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their February 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal ® ). The plaintiffs claimed that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and sought unspecified damages. In February 2023, a number of direct purchasers who were denied class certification filed suit as individual plaintiffs, which action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Discovery of the newly added individual plaintiffs is ongoing. Annual sales of Lamictal ® were approximately $950 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $2.3 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal ® in July 2008. In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers of Niaspan ® (extended-release niacin) filed claims against Teva and Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation over the product. A multidistrict litigation was established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct-purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly identical to those of the direct purchasers’ class. The indirect purchasers’ motion for class certification was denied by the district court, and that denial was subsequently (in 2023) affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The litigation remains ongoing. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint in California state court, alleging violations of state law and seeking restitution and civil penalties. The California state court case has been stayed. Annual sales of Niaspan ® were approximately $416 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $1.1 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan ® in September 2013. Between September 2021 and April 2022, several private plaintiffs including retailers and health insurance providers filed claims in various courts against Teva and certain other defendants related to various medicines used to treat HIV, which were all removed and/or consolidated into the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As they relate to Teva, the lawsuits challenged settlement agreements Teva entered into with Gilead in 2013 and/or 2014 to resolve patent litigation relating to Teva’s generic versions of Viread ® and/or Truvada ® and Atripla ® , although plaintiffs later abandoned any claim for damages relating to the Viread ® settlement. In May 2023, Teva and Gilead reached a settlement agreement with the retailer plaintiffs and Teva recognized a provision for this matter based on such settlement. On June 30, 2023, the jury in the trial against the remaining plaintiffs issued a verdict in favor of Teva and Gilead, rejecting all of the remaining plaintiffs’ claims, and on February 12, 2024, the court entered a judgment consistent with the jury verdict as to all claims against Teva. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and oral argument on the appeal occurred on October 9, 2025. A decision remains pending. Annual sales in the United States at the time of the settlement of Viread ® , Truvada ® and Atripla ® were approximately $582 million, $2.4 billion, and $2.9 billion, respectively. Annual sales in the United States at the time Teva launched its generic version of Viread ® in 2017, Truvada ® in 2020 and Atripla ® in 2020 were approximately $728 million, $2.1 billion and $444 million, respectively. On October 31, 2024, the European Commission, following a formal antitrust investigation, issued a final decision alleging that Teva had engaged in anticompetitive practices with respect to COPAXONE ® in certain European member states by (i) filing and withdrawing certain divisional patents, and (ii) raising concerns about competitors’ follow-on versions of COPAXONE. The decision also includes a fine of 462.6 million euros, potentially subject to post-decision interest. In January 2025, Teva filed an appeal against the decision with the General Court of the European Union, and that appeal remains pending. In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies,” Teva recognized a provision in its financial statements in the third quarter of 2024, based on management’s best estimate of the outcome within a range of outcomes for the final resolution of this case. Teva has provided the European Commission with surety underwritten guarantees in an amount of 462.6 million euros, together with specified post-decision interest, to cover the fine amount. Certain generic competitors in Europe have also brought similar antitrust claims against Teva in Germany and in the Netherlands, which have been stayed. Teva could face additional claims from generic competitors, payors, or other private plaintiffs in Europe related to this matter. On June 29, 2021, Mylan Pharmaceuticals (“Mylan”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 11, 2022 and March 15, 2022, purported purchasers of COPAXONE filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of themselves and similarly situated direct and indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. On August 22, 2022, additional purported purchasers of COPAXONE sued Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on behalf of themselves and similarly situated indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. The complaints variously assert claims for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, state and federal unfair competition and monopolization laws, tortious interference, trade libel, and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”). Additionally, plaintiffs claim Teva was involved in an unlawful scheme to delay and hinder generic competition concerning COPAXONE sales. On April 3, 2025, certain retailer plaintiffs, as opt-outs of the purported direct purchaser plaintiffs’ (“DPP”) class in the District of New Jersey, filed a complaint against Teva in the District of Vermont alleging claims similar to those filed by other plaintiffs and asserting a claim under the Sherman Act. On September 24, 2025, the Vermont court granted Teva’s motion to transfer the retailers’ case to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it has been consolidated with the other pending cases for pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs seek damages for lost profits and expenses, disgorgement, restitution, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Teva moved to dismiss all of the complaints, and on January 22, 2024, Teva’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the District of Vermont was granted as to certain state law claims but was otherwise denied. On April 13, 2026, adopting in full prior reports and recommendations issued by the Special Master in the District of New Jersey (the “Special Master”), the New Jersey District Court dismissed certain claims and allegations of the retailers and Mylan with prejudice. On May 30, 2025, the DPPs filed an amended complaint, which drops its class allegations and adds several new direct purchaser plaintiffs. Teva submitted its renewed motion to dismiss certain of DPPs’ allegations to the Special Master for resolution, which is fully briefed and remains pending. On October 20, 2025, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint similar to the DPPs’ amended complaint, and Teva submitted its renewed motion to dismiss those allegations to the Special Master for resolution, which remains pending. On July 15, 2021, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a decision imposing fines for breaches of U.K. competition law by Allergan, Actavis UK, Auden Mckenzie and a number of other companies in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. The decision combines the CMA’s three prior investigations into the supply of hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K., as well as the CMA’s subsequent investigation relating to an alleged anticompetitive agreement with Waymade. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, in connection with which Teva agreed to indemnify Accord Healthcare for potential fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court against Actavis UK in relation to two of the three statements of objection from the CMA (dated December 16, 2016 and March 3, 2017), and resulting from conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In addition, following Teva’s acquisition of the Actavis generics business from Allergan, Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan against losses arising from this matter in the event of any such fines or damages. On October 6, 2021, Accord UK (previously Actavis UK) and Auden Mckenzie appealed to the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) the CMA’s decisions that the prices of hydrocortisone were unfair and excessive and that the agreements amounted to infringements of the U.K.’s Competition Act as so-called pay-for-delay arrangements. The Tribunal handed down partial judgments on September 18, 2023 (judgment on unfair pricing), March 8, 2024 (judgments on pay-for-delay and due process) and April 29, 2024 (judgment on fines). On September 6, 2024, the U.K. Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal’s judgment on due process and, as a result, the Tribunal will consider and issue a further judgment on fines. In March 2025, the Tribunal gave Accord UK and Auden Mckenzie permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal certain other issues relating to unfair pricing and fines. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for June 23, 2026. A provision for the estimated exposure for Teva related to the fines and/or damages has been recorded in the financial statements. In November 2022, two complaints filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent retailer purchasers and a putative class of end-payor purchasers were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva and its marketing partner Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”) alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their December 2015 settlement of patent litigation with Celgene Corporation (which was subsequently acquired by BMS) involving the drug Revlimid ® (lenalidomide). The complaints also name Celgene and BMS as defendants. On January 24, 2023, the complaints were consolidated for pre-trial purposes only with an earlier-filed, already consolidated action filed against BMS and Celgene. On February 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed amended complaints adding additional plaintiffs. Additionally, on October 6, 2023, two individual payor plaintiffs brought claims similar to those described above in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which were consolidated with the pending consolidated actions and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 6, 2024, the court granted in full Celgene’s motion to dismiss claims brought by certain insurer plaintiffs, but allowed plaintiffs leave to amend most of their claims. The court had previously administratively terminated Teva’s, Natco’s, and Celgene’s motions to dismiss the retailer and end-payor complaints pending the decision on the Insurer Opt-Out Action. On August 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed amended complaints to which the defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. On December 16, 2024, five individual Insurer Opt-Out plaintiffs, each of whom had added Teva and Natco as defendants in the Insurer Amended Complaint filed on August 5, 2024, filed new standalone complaints naming Teva, Natco and others as defendants. Annual sales of Revlimid ® in the United States were approximately $ 3.5 billion at the time of the settlement. On December 2, 2022, plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of indirect purchasers of EpiPen ® (epinephrine injection) and NUVIGIL ® (armodafinil) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Teva, Cephalon, and a former Teva executive. Teva owns the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for NUVIGIL and sold the brand product, for which generic entry occurred in 2016. Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to sell generic EpiPen ® , which Teva launched in 2018 following receipt of FDA approval. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws, the RICO Act, and various state laws in connection with settlements resolving patent litigation relating to those products. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a brief in which plaintiffs limited their claims only to those relating to the alleged delay of generic NUVIGIL. On March 26, 2024, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ RICO claims and certain state law claims but denied Teva’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. On June 14, 2024, the court entered orders bifurcating discovery and limiting the first phase to the question of the timeliness of plaintiffs’ claims. On April 9, 2026, Teva filed a motion for summary judgement seeking dismissal based on the timelines of plaintiffs’ claims, and that motion remains pending. Substantially similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California and the Eastern District of New York on June 19, 2025 and June 23, 2025, respectively, and both litigations were subsequently transferred to the District of Kansas. On January 26, 2026, the court consolidated the transferred cases and plaintiffs filed a virtually identical, amended consolidated complaint on February 20, 2026. On March 20, 2026, Teva filed its motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Annual sales of NUVIGIL in the United States were approximately $ 300 million at the time Teva entered into the first settlement with an ANDA filer in 2012. In May 2023, certain end-payor plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Teva and a number of its affiliates, alleging that Teva engaged in anticompetitive conduct to suppress generic competition to its branded QVAR asthma inhalers in violation of state and federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that Teva had engaged in “sham litigation” and certain of plaintiffs’ state antitrust and consumer protection claims, but permitted the case to proceed on the remainder of plaintiffs’ allegations. Teva recognized a provision for this matter in 2025. On August 4, 2025, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, which was subsequently finalized and filed, and on April 2, 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement. In September, October, and December 2025, private plaintiffs representing (i) a putative class of end-payor purchasers, (ii) a putative class of direct purchasers; (iii) Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., HEB, L.P., and Supervalu, Inc., and (iv) CVS Pharmacy, Inc., filed complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against Bausch Health Companies Inc., Teva, and their related entities. In December 2025, certain of the plaintiff groups identified above filed an amended complaint. The operative complaints allege violations of the antitrust laws and various state laws in connection with the companies’ September 2018 settlement of patent litigation concerning the drug Xifaxan ® (rifaximin). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. On January 28, 2026 and March 25, 2026, respectively, the putative classes of end-payor purchasers and direct purchasers voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. On April 16, 2026, CVS Pharmacy Inc. filed an amended complaint and Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., HEB, L.P., and Supervalu, Inc. filed a motion to amend their complaint. Annual sales of Xifaxan ® were approximately $ 1.5 billion at the time of the settlement. Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing Teva is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing and promotion of its pharmaceutical products in the United States. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain Teva USA generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On August 25, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a three-count indictment charging Teva USA with criminal felony Sherman Act violations. On August 21, 2023, Teva USA entered into a 3-year deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ. Under the terms of the DPA, Teva USA: (i) admitted to violating the antitrust laws by agreeing with competitors, in three instances between 2013 and 2015 involving three separate customers, not to bid on an opportunity to supply a customer with a particular generic product (in the first instance pravastatin, in the second clotrimazole, and in the third tobramycin); (ii) agreed to divest the pravastatin that it sells in the United States to a third-party buyer; (iii) agreed to donate $50 million worth of clotrimazole and tobramycin, valued at wholesale acquisition cost (“WAC”), to humanitarian organizations over five years; and (iv) agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $225 million over 5 years, with $22.5 million due each year from 2024 through 2027, and $135 million due in 2028. Teva recognized a provision for the resolution of this case and divested pravastatin in November 2024 pursuant to the DPA. In May 2018, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ Civil Division pursuant to its investigation concerning allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Teva, engaged in market allocation and/or price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted in violation of the False Claims Act. On October 10, 2024, Teva entered into a settlement agreement with the Civil Division to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing, Teva is required to pay $25 million, consisting of $10 million that was paid in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $15 million that was paid in January 2026. Teva has recognized a provision for the resolution of this matter. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. On December 15, 2016, and as subsequently amended, a civil action was brought by the attorneys general of 49 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which includes claims against both Actavis and Teva. On May 10, 2019, and as subsequently amended, most of these attorneys general filed another antitrust complaint against Actavis, Teva and other companies and individuals alleging that Teva was at the center of a conspiracy in the generic pharmaceutical industry and asserting that Teva and others allegedly fixed prices, rigged bids, and allocated customers and market share with respect to certain products. The second complaint was amended on November 22, 2024, to add California as a plaintiff as well as to add additional defendants. On June 10, 2020, most of the same states, with the addition of the U.S. Virgin Islands, filed a separate, third complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut naming, among other defendants, Actavis, in a similar complaint relating to dermatological generic products, and that complaint was later amended to, among other things, add California as a plaintiff. For the complaints described above, which also include claims against certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, the states seek a finding that the defendants’ actions violated federal antitrust law and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages on behalf of various state and governmental entities and consumers, civil penalties and costs. In April 2024, all three of the attorneys general’s lawsuits were transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut where they were originally filed, and fact discovery in all three complaints was completed in 2025. The court has denied, in large part, each of the defendants’ joint motions for summary judgment as to the attorney general’s third complaint. Additional motions for summary judgment filed by certain defendants (including Actavis) remain pending. In addition, for the complaints described above, Teva has settled with the states of Mississippi (in June 2021), Louisiana (in March 2022), Georgia (in September 2022), Arkansas (in October 2022), Florida (in February 2023), Kentucky (in June 2023), South Dakota (in June 2024), and New Mexico (in June 2024). Teva paid each state an amount proportional to its share of the national population (approximately $1,000,000 for each 1% share of the national population), and such states have dismissed their claims against Actavis and Teva USA, as well as certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, pursuant to these settlements. These settlements, in addition to the status of negotiations with several other U.S. state attorneys general to settle on comparable terms, caused management to consider settlement of the claims filed by the remaining attorneys general to be probable, and management recorded an estimated provision in the third quarter of 2022. In the second quarter of 2025, Teva updated the provision based on recent developments in its ongoing negotiations with certain remaining U.S. state attorneys general. The States of Alabama (in March 2022) and Hawaii (in August 2023) and the territories of American Samoa (in July 2020) and Guam (in February 2023) have all voluntarily dismissed all of their claims in the litigation against Actavis and Teva USA. The dismissals by Alabama, Hawaii and Guam were with prejudice and the dismissal by American Samoa was without prejudice. Beginning on March 2, 2016, and through June 2025, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct and indirect purchaser opt-out plaintiffs, including most recently a complaint filed by an indirect opt out plaintiff on December 2, 2025. All such complaints (other than the December 2025 complaint, as detailed below) have been transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania MDL”). These complaints have been brought against various manufacturer defendants, including Teva USA and Actavis, alleging that these defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic products, and generally seeking injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, as well as damages under various state laws. With limited exceptions, all fact discovery in the Pennsylvania MDL was completed in December 2025. The Pennsylvania MDL court selected two single-drug cases brought by putative classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs (“DPPs”) and end-payor plaintiffs (“EPPs”) as bellwethers. Actavis (but not Teva) is a defendant in those cases. After selecting those two bellwether cases, the Pennsylvania MDL court certified them as class actions and proposed holding a trial in the EPP bellwether case starting in August 2025. However, on June 17, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit gave defendants permission to immediately appeal the Pennsylvania MDL court’s grant of class certification and the Pennsylvania MDL court thereafter stayed the EPPs and DPPs bellwether cases. Briefing on the appeal was completed in December 2025. The Third Circuit tentatively scheduled oral arguments on the appeal for June 1, 2026. The Pennsylvania MDL court has since selected five additional bellwethers: (i) Humana Inc.’s (“Humana”) indirect opt-out case, involving claims on various drugs, with trial expected in September 2026; (ii) a case filed by a putative class of indirect reseller plaintiffs (“IRPs”) involving claims on a single drug (pravastatin), with the trial expected in December 2026; (iii) Kroger Co. (“Kroger”), a direct opt-out case, involving claims on various drugs, with the trial expected in August 2027; (iv) Cigna Corp. (“Cigna”), an indirect opt-out case, involving claims on various drugs, with the trial expected in January 2028; and (v) CVS Pharmacy Inc. (“CVS”), a direct opt-out case, involving claims on various drugs, where a trial date has not yet been set. From 2019 to 2021, certain individual plaintiffs commenced civil actions in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis. Following defendants’ request, the cases filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County have all been placed in deferred status. One plaintiff, Aetna Inc., filed a complaint in Connecticut state court on December 30, 2024. Certain counties in New York and Texas have also commenced civil actions against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis, and the complaints have been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. On March 14, 2025 and June 9, 2025, respectively, Walmart Inc. and Southwest Airlines, Inc. filed lawsuits against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. On May 19, 2025, New York Quality Healthcare Corporation filed a lawsuit against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in New York Supreme Court, County of New York. On December 2, 2025, AT&T Services, Inc. filed a lawsuit against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and that action has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. On December 12, 2025, Taurus Acquisition Group filed a lawsuit against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and that action has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. One similar complaint has also been brought in Canada, with allegations that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic drug products to the detriment of a class of private payors. The court held a class certification hearing in October 2025 and, in February 2026, issued its decision denying class certification. Plaintiffs’ time to appeal has since expired. The case is still pending with only one individual plaintiff remaining. In March 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva’s donations to patient assistance programs. In August 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and for unjust enrichment (the “DOJ PAP Complaint”). It was alleged that Teva’s donations to certain 501(c)(3) charities that provided financial assistance to multiple sclerosis patients violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. On October 10, 2024, Teva entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ to resolve these claims. Under the terms of the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing, Teva is required to pay $425 million over 6 years – $19 million was paid in December 2024, $34 million was paid in January 2026, $49 million is due to be paid in each of December 2026 and December 2027, $99 million is due to be paid in December 2028, and $175 million is due to be paid in December 2029. The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 19, 2024. Teva has recognized a provision for the resolution of this case. Additionally, on January 8, 2021, Humana filed an action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida based on the allegations raised in the DOJ PAP Complaint. On April 29, 2025, the court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2025, Humana re-filed the case in Kentucky circuit court, alleging the same facts alleged in the Florida district court action. On July 29, 2025, Teva filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part on January 15, 2026, leaving only claims for breach of various rebate agreements remaining. On November 17, 2022, United Healthcare filed an action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey based on the conduct alleged in the DOJ PAP Complaint, followed by an amended complaint filed on February 29, 2024. On March 28, 2025, Teva moved for summary judgment limited to the statute of limitations defense as per the court’s order, and that motion is pending. In April 2021, a city and county in Washington filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of the RICO Act, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment concerning Teva’s sale of COPAXONE. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of health plans and a subclass of Washington-based health plans that purchased and/or reimbursed health plan members for COPAXONE. Plaintiffs allege that Teva engaged in several fraudulent schemes that resulted in plaintiffs and the putative class members purchasing and/or reimbursing plan members for additional prescriptions of COPAXONE and/or at inflated COPAXONE prices. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for the excess reimbursements and inflated costs, as well as injunctive relief. On November 17, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the direct purchaser rule, suffer from jurisdictional defects, and fail to plausibly allege fraud or other elements of their claims. On March 9, 2023, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and a decision remains pending. On June 27, 2025, Teva filed a motion to lift the stay of discovery. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending. On December 1, 2022, Teva received a civil subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting certain documents related to the sale and marketing of AUSTEDO ® and risperidone LAI. Teva is cooperating with the request for documents and information. On October 1, 2024, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts and the Civil Division of the Department of Justice requesting certain documents and information related to the manufacturing practices at its former manufacturing facility in Irvine, California, which Teva closed in 2022. Teva is cooperating with the request for documents and information. Opioids Litigation Since May 2014, more than 3,500 complaints have been filed by various governmental agencies and private plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates and several other pharmaceutical companies, the vast majority of which have been resolved. The majority of the remaining cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (the “MDL Opioid Proceeding”). These cases assert claims under similar provisions of different state laws and generally allege that the defendants engaged in improper marketing and distribution of Teva’s branded opioids, including ACTIQ ® and FENTORA ® , and also assert claims related to Teva’s generic opioid products. In the first quarter of 2026, Teva and representatives for a class of third-party payers (“TPPs”) reached an agreement in principle to settle the TPPs’ opioid-related claims. Teva’s settlement agreement with the TPPs is contingent upon Teva’s, in the exercise of its sole discretion, satisfaction with the level of participation by the TPPs in the proposed settlement agreement. In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Furthermore, approximately 100 personal injury complaints allege that Anda (in addition to naming other distributors and manufacturers) failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent their abuse and diversion. Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, non-economic damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs seek damages for all costs associated with addressing the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. All but a handful of these cases are stayed in the MDL Opioid Proceedings. In June 2023, Teva finalized and fully resolved its nationwide settlement agreement with the states and litigating subdivisions. Under the financial terms of the nationwide settlement agreement with the states and subdivisions, Teva will pay up to $4.25 billion (including the already settled cases), spread over 13 years. This total includes the supply of up to $1.2 billion of Teva’s generic version of Narcan ® (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray), valued at wholesale acquisition cost, over 10 years or cash at 20% of the wholesale acquisition cost ($240 million) in lieu of product. Teva has settled claims brought by 100% of the U.S. states and their litigating political subdivisions, the Native American tribes (the “Tribes”), and approximately 500 U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers asserting opioid-related claims, including public nuisance. Teva’s estimated cash payments between 2026 and 2030 for all opioids settlements are: $379 million to be paid in 2026 (of which $30 million was paid as of March 31, 2026), $365 million payable in 2027; $416 million payable in 2028; $339 million payable in 2029; and $337 million payable in 2030. These payments are subject to change based on various factors including, but not limited to, timing of payments, most favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, and the states’ elections to take Teva’s generic version of Narcan ® (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray). The remaining payments, subject to adjustments, will be paid beyond 2030. In light of the nationwide settlement agreement between Teva and the States’ Attorneys General and their subdivisions, Teva’s indemnification obligations arising from Teva’s acquisition of the Actavis Generics business for opioid-related claims, prior settlements reached with Louisiana, Texas, Rhode Island, Florida, San Francisco, West Virginia, New York, the Tribes, Nevada and the City of Baltimore, the agreement with the hospitals discussed above, Teva’s agreement in principle with the TPPs, as well as an estimate for a number of items including, but not limited to, costs associated with administering injunctive terms, and most favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, the Company has recorded a provision. The provision is a reasonable estimate of the ultimate costs for Teva’s opioids settlements, after discounting payments to their net present value. Opioid-related lawsuits brought against Teva by dozens of TPPs, such as unions and welfare funds, are expected to remain pending unless Teva finalizes its TPP settlement agreement. A reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined for the entirety of the remaining opioid-related cases. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and adverse effect on Teva’s reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows. In addition, Teva, certain of its subsidiaries and other defendants, are defending claims and putative class action lawsuits in Canada related to the manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of opioid medications. The lawsuits include: (i) a claim brought by the Province of British Columbia on behalf of itself and a putative class of other federal and provincial governments, (ii) claims of municipalities, (iii) claims on behalf of various First Nations groups, and (iv) consumer class actions on behalf of persons who used opioids on behalf of themselves and putative classes. On January 22, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court certified the class of federal and provincial governments. Defendants appealed this decision, a hearing on this appeal was held in December 2025, and a decision remains pending. The court in Quebec certified the class in the consumer class action in 2024 (and denied leave to appeal). In the first quarter of 2026, Teva reached an agreement in principle to settle claims by one national consumer class, brought in Ontario on behalf of persons who used opioids. Teva expects to memorialize the terms of the settlement during 2026 and to evaluate class participation before deciding whether to finalize the settlement. Other Canadian opioid actions remain in their preliminary stages. Shareholder Litigation In November and December 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors, which were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation”). On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019, asserting that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities and common laws in connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering materials. From July 2017 to June 2019, other putative securities class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar allegations and claims, and were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Between August 2017 and January 2022, twenty-three complaints were filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of plaintiffs in various forums across the country, and many of those plaintiffs had “opted-out” of the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. On January 18, 2022, Teva entered into a settlement in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation for $420 million, which received final approval from the court on June 2, 2022. The vast majority of the total settlement amount was covered by the Company’s insurance carriers, with a small portion contributed by Teva. Additionally, as part of the settlement, Teva admitted no liability as part of the settlement and has denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Teva has settled the vast majority of “opt-out” claims including a class settlement with shareholders in Israel. One opt-out case remains pending in the U.S., with a trial scheduled for January 2027. On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Teva and certain of its former officers. On August 10, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a corrected amended class action complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020. The corrected amended complaint alleges that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had allegedly caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva’s donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE’s commercial success and the sustainability of Teva’s revenues and resulted in the DOJ PAP Complaint filed by the DOJ. The corrected amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and legal fees. On November 3, 2023, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and a motion to approve a securities class action with similar allegations was also filed in September 2022 in the Central District Court in Israel, which has been stayed pending the U.S. litigation. Environmental Matters Teva or its subsidiaries are party to environmental proceedings under the federal Superfund law or other federal, provincial or state and local laws relating to alleged noncompliance, the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances and natural resource damages. Many of these proceedings and claims seek to require the generators of hazardous waste disposed of at a third party-owned site, or the party responsible for a release of hazardous substances, including per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), to investigate and clean-up the site or to pay or reimburse others for such activities, including for oversight by governmental authorities and any related damages to natural resources. Teva or its subsidiaries have been made a party to these claims and proceedings, along with others, as an alleged generator of waste disposed of or treated at third-party waste disposal sites or as a result of an alleged release from one of Teva’s facilities or former facilities. Although liability among responsible parties may be joint and several under certain circumstances, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of clean-up and other costs among the parties reflects the relative contribution of each party to site conditions, also taking into account other relevant factors. In addition, enforcement proceedings relating to alleged violations of federal, state, commonwealth or local requirements at some of Teva’s facilities could result in the imposition of penalties (in amounts not expected to materially adversely affect Teva’s results of operations) and the recovery of certain costs and natural resource damages, and may require that corrective actions and enhanced compliance measures be implemented. The following matter is disclosed pursuant to Item 103 of Regulation S-K because a governmental authority is a party and it involves monetary sanctions that could exceed $300,000. On July 8, 2021, the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, issued an order against Teva’s subsidiary in India, Teva API India Private Limited, finding non-compliance with environmental laws in India and assessing a penalty of $1.4 million. Teva filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, disputing certain of the findings and the amount of the penalty. On August 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of India granted a stay of the judgment by the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India accepted the appeal filed by Teva’s subsidiary and a hearing will be scheduled in due course. Teva does not believe that the eventual outcome of this matter will have a material effect on its business and results of operations. Other Matters On January 15, 2025, Teva filed a lawsuit against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that CMS’s implementation of the Drug Price Negotiation Program portion of the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) of 2022 is arbitrary and contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and is therefore unconstitutional. On November 20, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted CMS’s motion for summary judgement. Teva has appealed this decision. The appeal hearing is scheduled for May 5, 2026. Gain Contingencies From time to time, Teva may directly or indirectly pursue claims against certain parties, including but not limited to patent infringement lawsuits against other pharmaceutical companies to protect its patent rights, as well as derivative actions brought on behalf of Teva. Teva recognizes gain contingencies from such lawsuits when they are realized or when all related contingencies have been resolved, subject to a signed or legally enforceable agreement, where applicable. No gain has been recognized regarding any matter disclosed below, unless mentioned otherwise. In October 2017, Teva filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Eli Lilly & Co.’s (“L illy ”) marketing and sale of its galcanezumab product for the treatment of migraine infringes on nine Teva patents, including three method of treatment patents and six composition of matter patents. Lilly then submitted inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), challenging the validity of the nine Teva patents. The PTAB issued decisions upholding the three method of treatment patents but finding the six composition of matter patents invalid, which decisions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 16, 2021. A jury trial regarding the three method of treatment patents resulted in a verdict in Teva’s favor on November 9, 2022. The jury’s verdict found that the three method of treatment patents were valid and infringed by Lilly and awarded Teva $176.5 million in damages. On September 26, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision that reversed the jury’s verdict and damages award, finding Teva’s method of treatment patents to be invalid. Teva appealed and a hearing was held on September 5, 2025. On April 16, 2026, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Teva’s favor, reinstating the jury’s verdict of infringement and award of damages. Lilly may seek further review of this decision. In March 2024, Teva filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Amarin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, and Amarin Corporation plc (collectively “Amarin”) engaged in a decade-long scheme to lock up the supply of icosapent ethyl to prevent and delay generic competition to its branded Vascepa ® drug product. Teva’s lawsuit coincides with four other lawsuits brought by generic drug manufacturers and purchasers of branded Vascepa ® alleging the same or similar conduct by Amarin. Teva’s requested relief includes compensatory damages for lost sales and lost profits from generic icosapent ethyl drug sales that Teva could have made absent Amarin’s alleged interference. On May 24, 2024, Amarin filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, seeking to enforce the terms of an earlier Teva-Amarin agreement to settle patent litigation regarding Vascepa ® , which Amarin asserted precluded Teva from filing the present antitrust action. On December 4, 2024, the Nevada court denied Amarin’s motion. On October 8, 2025, Amarin filed a motion with the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey, where the case is pending, seeking judgment on the pleadings on the same grounds as its motion in Nevada. On February 2, 2026, the Court denied Amarin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. As the lawsuit is still in its initial stages, it is not possible to predict its outcome and there is no guarantee that Teva will be granted its requested relief. In June 2024, Teva filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (“Corcept”) and Optime Care Inc. (“Optime”) engaged in a multifaceted, years-long scheme to stifle generic competition to Corcept’s branded Korlym ® (mifepristone) drug product, which is indicated to treat endogenous Cushing’s syndrome. Teva alleges that Corcept and Optime have suppressed competition by abusing the patent and judicial systems, entering a long-term, blanket exclusive-dealing agreement that has locked up a key pharmaceutical distribution channel, and making illicit payments to physicians as compensation for prescribing Korlym ® . Teva’s requested relief includes compensatory damages for lost sales and lost profits from generic mifepristone drug sales that Teva could have made absent Corcept and Optime’s alleged interference, as well as injunctive relief to remove the unlawful barriers to generic competition created by Corcept and Optime. Teva filed an amended complaint in September 2024. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss in October 2024, which the court denied in substantial part on September 12, 2025. On September 26, 2025, Teva filed an amended complaint amending certain claims that were dismissed. On October 31, 2025, Corcept and Optime filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in Teva’s second amended complaint. Briefing on that motion is now complete and a decision remains pending. On January 29, 2026, Teva filed an amended complaint, adding a new claim for unlawful exclusive dealing against Corcept. On February 5, 2026, Corcept and Optime filed supplemental briefs in support of their joint motion to dismiss. Briefing on that motion is complete and a decision remains pending. Discovery is ongoing. As the lawsuit is still in its initial stages, it is not possible to predict its outcome and there is no guarantee that Teva will be granted its requested relief. Motions to approve derivative actions seeking monetary damages against certain past and present directors and officers have been filed in Israeli Courts alleging negligence and recklessness, as well as motions for document disclosure prior to initiating derivative actions. These motions were filed with respect to several U.S. and EU settlement agreements, allegations related to the DOJ PAP Complaint, and with respect to the European Commission’s proceedings relating to COPAXONE.

Teva records a provision in its consolidated financial statements to the extent that it concludes that a contingent liability is probable and the amount thereof is reasonably estimable. Except as noted below, no material provision has been made regarding any matter disclosed in this note, based upon the case status, management’s assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of legal counsel. Litigation outcomes and contingencies are unpredictable, and substantial damages or other relief may be awarded. Accordingly, management’s assessments involve complex judgments about future events and often rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Teva continuously reviews the matters described below and may, from time to time, remove a previously disclosed matter where the exposure was fully resolved in the prior year, or determined to no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure (including, in some circumstances, because such matter has been substantially resolved).

In July 2014, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent directed to using carvedilol in a specified manner to decrease the risk of mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Teva began selling its carvedilol tablets (the generic version of GSK’s Coreg

) in September 2007. A jury returned a $235.5 million verdict in GSK’s favor, finding Teva liable for patent infringement in 2017. On February 9, 2026, Teva and GSK entered a settlement, and all pending litigation regarding this matter has been dismissed pursuant to that settlement.

On April 30, 2018, Vanda sued Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of six

Orang

e-Book listed patents expiring between January 2033 and May 2034 related to Vanda’s Hetlioz

. On May 10, 2023, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity of four patents asserted by Vanda and held that one patent had not been infringed by Teva. In December 2022, Teva launched its tasimelteon product (the generic version of Hetlioz

). Vanda filed a second lawsuit, again asserting the infringement of certain patents related to Hetlioz

that is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Teva has counterclaims for non-infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability of Vanda’s patents. There is no trial date set for this second case. Should Teva be found liable for patent infringement, it could be subject to monetary damages and enjoined from further selling its tasimelteon product.

Teva has also been named as a defendant in product liability actions involving Paragard

, an Intrauterine device (“IUD”) product that Teva divested to Cooper Surgical in 2017. These actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (“MDL”). The first MDL bellwether trial concluded on February 3, 2026, with a defense verdict in Teva’s favor. In February 2026, the MDL Court entered an order scheduling the second bellwether trial to begin on September 28, 2026. There is also one Paragard case pending in state court in New Jersey.

In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs filed claims against Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the U.S. antitrust laws in connection with their November 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving extended-release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR

). The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, a purported class of indirect purchasers and certain chain pharmacies in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry. On August 19, 2025, the district court approved a settlement agreement between Teva and one group of plaintiffs (the indirect purchaser plaintiffs), while the case is proceeding with respect to the other plaintiffs. Annual sales of Effexor XR

were approximately $2.6 billion at the time of settlement and at the time Teva launched its generic version of Effexor XR

in July 2010.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed claims against GSK and Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their February 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal

). The plaintiffs claimed that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and sought unspecified damages. In February 2023, a number of direct purchasers who were denied class certification filed suit as individual plaintiffs, which action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Discovery of the newly added individual plaintiffs is ongoing. Annual sales of Lamictal

were approximately $950 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $2.3 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal

in July 2008.

In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers of Niaspan

(extended-release niacin) filed claims against Teva and Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation over the product. A multidistrict litigation was established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct-purchaser

opt-out

plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly identical to those of the direct purchasers’ class. The indirect purchasers’ motion for class certification was denied by the district court, and that denial was subsequently (in 2023) affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The litigation remains ongoing. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint in California state court, alleging violations of state law and seeking restitution and civil penalties. The California state court case has been stayed. Annual sales of Niaspan

were approximately $416 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $1.1 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan

in September 2013.

Between September 2021 and April 2022, several private plaintiffs including retailers and health insurance providers filed claims in various courts against Teva and certain other defendants related to various medicines used to treat HIV, which were all removed and/or consolidated into the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As they relate to Teva, the lawsuits challenged settlement agreements Teva entered into with Gilead in 2013 and/or 2014 to resolve patent litigation relating to Teva’s generic versions of Viread

and/or Truvada

and Atripla

, although plaintiffs later abandoned any claim for damages relating to the Viread

settlement. In May 2023, Teva and Gilead reached a settlement agreement with the retailer plaintiffs and Teva recognized a provision for this matter based on such settlement. On June 30, 2023, the jury in the trial against the remaining plaintiffs issued a verdict in favor of Teva and Gilead, rejecting all of the remaining plaintiffs’ claims, and on February 12, 2024, the court entered a judgment consistent with the jury verdict as to all claims against Teva. The plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and oral argument on the appeal occurred on October 9, 2025. A decision remains pending. Annual sales in the United States at the time of the settlement of Viread

, Truvada

and Atripla

were approximately $582 million, $2.4 billion, and $2.9 billion, respectively. Annual sales in the United States at the time Teva launched its generic version of Viread

in 2017, Truvada

in 2020 and Atripla

in 2020 were approximately $728 million, $2.1 billion and $444 million, respectively.

On October 31, 2024, the European Commission, following a formal antitrust investigation, issued a final decision alleging that Teva had engaged in anticompetitive practices with respect to COPAXONE

in certain European member states by (i) filing and withdrawing certain divisional patents, and (ii) raising concerns about competitors’

follow-on

versions of COPAXONE. The decision also includes a fine of 462.6 million euros, potentially subject to post-decision interest. In January 2025, Teva filed an appeal against the decision with the General Court of the European Union, and that appeal remains pending. In accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies,” Teva recognized a provision in its financial statements in the third quarter of 2024, based on management’s best estimate of the outcome within a range of outcomes for the final resolution of this case. Teva has provided the European Commission with surety underwritten guarantees in an amount of 462.6 million euros, together with specified post-decision interest, to cover the fine amount. Certain generic competitors in Europe have also brought similar antitrust claims against Teva in Germany and in the Netherlands, which have been stayed. Teva could face additional claims from generic competitors, payors, or other private plaintiffs in Europe related to this matter.

On June 29, 2021, Mylan Pharmaceuticals (“Mylan”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 11, 2022 and March 15, 2022, purported purchasers of COPAXONE filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of themselves and similarly situated direct and indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. On August 22, 2022, additional purported purchasers of COPAXONE sued Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont on behalf of themselves and similarly situated indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. The complaints variously assert claims for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, state and federal unfair competition and monopolization laws, tortious interference, trade libel, and a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”). Additionally, plaintiffs claim Teva was involved in an unlawful scheme to delay and hinder generic competition concerning COPAXONE sales. On April 3, 2025, certain retailer plaintiffs, as

opt-outs

of the purported direct purchaser plaintiffs’ (“DPP”) class in the District of New Jersey, filed a complaint against Teva in the District of Vermont alleging claims similar to those filed by other plaintiffs and asserting a claim under the Sherman Act. On September 24, 2025, the Vermont court granted Teva’s motion to transfer the retailers’ case to the District Court for the District of New Jersey, where it has been consolidated with the other pending cases for pretrial purposes. Plaintiffs seek damages for lost profits and expenses, disgorgement, restitution, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Teva moved to dismiss all of the complaints, and on January 22, 2024, Teva’s motion to dismiss the complaint in the District of Vermont was granted as to certain state law claims but was otherwise denied. On April 13, 2026, adopting in full prior reports and recommendations issued by the Special Master in the District of New Jersey (the “Special Master”), the New Jersey District Court dismissed certain claims and allegations of the retailers and Mylan with prejudice. On May 30, 2025, the DPPs filed an amended complaint, which drops its class allegations and adds several new direct purchaser plaintiffs. Teva submitted its renewed motion to dismiss certain of DPPs’ allegations to the Special Master for resolution, which is fully briefed and remains pending. On October 20, 2025, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint similar to the DPPs’ amended complaint, and Teva submitted its renewed motion to dismiss those allegations to the Special Master for resolution, which remains pending.

On July 15, 2021, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a decision imposing fines for breaches of U.K. competition law by Allergan, Actavis UK, Auden Mckenzie and a number of other companies in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. The decision combines the CMA’s three prior investigations into the supply of hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K., as well as the CMA’s subsequent investigation relating to an alleged anticompetitive agreement with Waymade. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, in connection with which Teva agreed to indemnify Accord Healthcare for potential fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court against Actavis UK in relation to two of the three statements of objection from the CMA (dated December 16, 2016 and March 3, 2017), and resulting from conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In addition, following Teva’s acquisition of the Actavis generics business from Allergan, Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan against losses arising from this matter in the event of any such fines or damages. On October 6, 2021, Accord UK (previously Actavis UK) and Auden Mckenzie appealed to the U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) the CMA’s decisions that the prices of hydrocortisone were unfair and excessive and that the agreements amounted to infringements of the U.K.’s Competition Act as

so-called

pay-for-delay

arrangements. The Tribunal handed down partial judgments on September 18, 2023 (judgment on unfair pricing), March 8, 2024 (judgments on

pay-for-delay

and due process) and April 29, 2024 (judgment on fines). On September 6, 2024, the U.K. Court of Appeal overturned the Tribunal’s judgment on due process and, as a result, the Tribunal will consider and issue a further judgment on fines. In March 2025, the Tribunal gave Accord UK and Auden Mckenzie permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal certain other issues relating to unfair pricing and fines. The appeal hearing has been scheduled for June 23, 2026. A provision for the estimated exposure for Teva related to the fines and/or damages has been recorded in the financial statements.

In November 2022, two complaints filed by plaintiffs purporting to represent retailer purchasers and a putative class of

end-payor

purchasers were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva and its marketing partner Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”) alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their December 2015 settlement of patent litigation with Celgene Corporation (which was subsequently acquired by BMS) involving the drug Revlimid

(lenalidomide). The complaints also name Celgene and BMS as defendants. On January 24, 2023, the complaints were consolidated for

pre-trial

purposes only with an earlier-filed, already consolidated action filed against BMS and Celgene. On February 16, 2023, plaintiffs filed amended complaints adding additional plaintiffs. Additionally, on October 6, 2023, two individual payor plaintiffs brought claims similar to those described above in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which were consolidated with the pending consolidated actions and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 6, 2024, the court granted in full Celgene’s motion to dismiss claims brought by certain insurer plaintiffs, but allowed plaintiffs leave to amend most of their claims. The court had previously administratively terminated Teva’s, Natco’s, and Celgene’s motions to dismiss the retailer and

end-payor

complaints pending the decision on the Insurer

Opt-Out

Action. On August 5, 2024, plaintiffs filed amended complaints to which the defendants subsequently filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. On December 16, 2024, five individual Insurer Opt-Out plaintiffs, each of whom had added Teva and Natco as defendants in the Insurer Amended Complaint filed on August 5, 2024, filed new standalone complaints naming Teva, Natco and others as defendants. Annual sales of Revlimid

in the United States were approximately $

3.5

billion at the time of the settlement.

On December 2, 2022, plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of indirect purchasers of EpiPen

(epinephrine injection) and NUVIGIL

(armodafinil) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas against Teva, Cephalon, and a former Teva executive. Teva owns the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for NUVIGIL and sold the brand product, for which generic entry occurred in 2016. Teva filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) to sell generic EpiPen

, which Teva launched in 2018 following receipt of FDA approval. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated federal antitrust laws, the RICO Act, and various state laws in connection with settlements resolving patent litigation relating to those products. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a brief in which plaintiffs limited their claims only to those relating to the alleged delay of generic NUVIGIL. On March 26, 2024, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ RICO claims and certain state law claims but denied Teva’s motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ antitrust claims. On June 14, 2024, the court entered orders bifurcating discovery and limiting the first phase to the question of the timeliness of plaintiffs’ claims. On April 9, 2026, Teva filed a motion for summary judgement seeking dismissal based on the timelines of plaintiffs’ claims, and that motion remains pending. Substantially similar complaints were filed in the U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California and the Eastern District of New York on June 19, 2025 and June 23, 2025, respectively, and both litigations were subsequently transferred to the District of Kansas. On January 26, 2026, the court consolidated the transferred cases and plaintiffs filed a virtually identical, amended consolidated complaint on February 20, 2026. On March 20, 2026, Teva filed its motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint. Annual sales of NUVIGIL in the United States were approximately $

300

million at the time Teva entered into the first settlement with an ANDA filer in 2012.

In May 2023, certain

end-payor

plaintiffs filed putative class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Teva and a number of its affiliates, alleging that Teva engaged in anticompetitive conduct to suppress generic competition to its branded QVAR asthma inhalers in violation of state and federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws. The court dismissed plaintiffs’ claim that Teva had engaged in “sham litigation” and certain of plaintiffs’ state antitrust and consumer protection claims, but permitted the case to proceed on the remainder of plaintiffs’ allegations. Teva recognized a provision for this matter in 2025. On August 4, 2025, the parties informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, which was subsequently finalized and filed, and on April 2, 2026, the Court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.

In September, October, and December 2025, private plaintiffs representing (i) a putative class of

end-payor

purchasers, (ii) a putative class of direct purchasers; (iii) Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., HEB, L.P., and Supervalu, Inc., and (iv) CVS Pharmacy, Inc., filed complaints in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against Bausch Health Companies Inc., Teva, and their related entities. In December 2025, certain of the plaintiff groups identified above filed an amended complaint. The operative complaints allege violations of the antitrust laws and various state laws in connection with the companies’ September 2018 settlement of patent litigation concerning the drug Xifaxan

(rifaximin). Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief, treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit. On January 28, 2026 and March 25, 2026, respectively, the putative classes of

end-payor

purchasers and direct purchasers voluntarily dismissed their claims without prejudice. On April 16, 2026, CVS Pharmacy Inc. filed an amended complaint and Walgreen Co., The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, Inc., HEB, L.P., and Supervalu, Inc. filed a motion to amend their complaint. Annual sales of Xifaxan

were approximately $

1.5

billion at the time of the settlement.

In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain Teva USA generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On August 25, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a three-count indictment charging Teva USA with criminal felony Sherman Act violations. On August 21, 2023, Teva USA entered into a

3-year

deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) with the DOJ. Under the terms of the DPA, Teva USA: (i) admitted to violating the antitrust laws by agreeing with competitors, in three instances between 2013 and 2015 involving three separate customers, not to bid on an opportunity to supply a customer with a particular generic product (in the first instance pravastatin, in the second clotrimazole, and in the third tobramycin); (ii) agreed to divest the pravastatin that it sells in the United States to a third-party buyer; (iii) agreed to donate $50 million worth of clotrimazole and tobramycin, valued at wholesale acquisition cost (“WAC”), to humanitarian organizations over five years; and (iv) agreed to pay a fine in the amount of $225 million over 5 years, with $22.5 million due each year from 2024 through 2027, and $135 million due in 2028. Teva recognized a provision for the resolution of this case and divested pravastatin in November 2024 pursuant to the DPA.

In May 2018, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ Civil Division pursuant to its investigation concerning allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Teva, engaged in market allocation and/or price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted in violation of the False Claims Act. On October 10, 2024, Teva entered into a settlement agreement with the Civil Division to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing, Teva is required to pay $25 million, consisting of $10 million that was paid in the fourth quarter of 2024 and $15 million that was paid in January 2026. Teva has recognized a provision for the resolution of this matter.

In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. On December 15, 2016, and as subsequently amended, a civil action was brought by the attorneys general of 49 states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, which includes claims against both Actavis and Teva. On May 10, 2019, and as subsequently amended, most of these attorneys general filed another antitrust complaint against Actavis, Teva and other companies and individuals alleging that Teva was at the center of a conspiracy in the generic pharmaceutical industry and asserting that Teva and others allegedly fixed prices, rigged bids, and allocated customers and market share with respect to certain products. The second complaint was amended on November 22, 2024, to add California as a plaintiff as well as to add additional defendants. On June 10, 2020, most of the same states, with the addition of the U.S. Virgin Islands, filed a separate, third complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut naming, among other defendants, Actavis, in a similar complaint relating to dermatological generic products, and that complaint was later amended to, among other things, add California as a plaintiff.

For the complaints described above, which also include claims against certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, the states seek a finding that the defendants’ actions violated federal antitrust law and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages on behalf of various state and governmental entities and consumers, civil penalties and costs. In April 2024, all three of the attorneys general’s lawsuits were transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut where they were originally filed, and fact discovery in all three complaints was completed in 2025. The court has denied, in large part, each of the defendants’ joint motions for summary judgment as to the attorney general’s third complaint. Additional motions for summary judgment filed by certain defendants (including Actavis) remain pending.

In addition, for the complaints described above, Teva has settled with the states of Mississippi (in June 2021), Louisiana (in March 2022), Georgia (in September 2022), Arkansas (in October 2022), Florida (in February 2023), Kentucky (in June 2023), South Dakota (in June 2024), and New Mexico (in June 2024). Teva paid each state an amount proportional to its share of the national population (approximately $1,000,000 for each 1% share of the national population), and such states have dismissed their claims against Actavis and Teva USA, as well as certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, pursuant to these settlements. These settlements, in addition to the status of negotiations with several other U.S. state attorneys general to settle on comparable terms, caused management to consider settlement of the claims filed by the remaining attorneys general to be probable, and management recorded an estimated provision in the third quarter of 2022. In the second quarter of 2025, Teva updated the provision based on recent developments in its ongoing negotiations with certain remaining U.S. state attorneys general. The States of Alabama (in March 2022) and Hawaii (in August 2023) and the territories of American Samoa (in July 2020) and Guam (in February 2023) have all voluntarily dismissed all of their claims in the litigation against Actavis and Teva USA. The dismissals by Alabama, Hawaii and Guam were with prejudice and the dismissal by American Samoa was without prejudice.

Beginning on March 2, 2016, and through June 2025, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct and indirect purchaser

opt-out

plaintiffs, including most recently a complaint filed by an indirect opt out plaintiff on December 2, 2025. All such complaints (other than the December 2025 complaint, as detailed below) have been transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania MDL”). These complaints have been brought against various manufacturer defendants, including Teva USA and Actavis, alleging that these defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic products, and generally seeking injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, as well as damages under various state laws. With limited exceptions, all fact discovery in the Pennsylvania MDL was completed in December 2025. The Pennsylvania MDL court selected two single-drug cases brought by putative classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs (“DPPs”) and

end-payor

plaintiffs (“EPPs”) as bellwethers. Actavis (but not Teva) is a defendant in those cases. After selecting those two bellwether cases, the Pennsylvania MDL court certified them as class actions and proposed holding a trial in the EPP bellwether case starting in August 2025. However, on June 17, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit gave defendants permission to immediately appeal the Pennsylvania MDL court’s grant of class certification and the Pennsylvania MDL court thereafter stayed the EPPs and DPPs bellwether cases. Briefing on the appeal was completed in December 2025. The Third Circuit tentatively scheduled oral arguments on the appeal for June 1, 2026. The Pennsylvania MDL court has since selected five additional bellwethers: (i) Humana Inc.’s (“Humana”) indirect

opt-out

case, involving claims on various drugs, with trial expected in September 2026; (ii) a case filed by a putative class of indirect reseller plaintiffs (“IRPs”) involving claims on a single drug (pravastatin), with the trial expected in December 2026; (iii) Kroger Co. (“Kroger”), a direct

opt-out

case, involving claims on various drugs, with the trial expected in August 2027; (iv) Cigna Corp. (“Cigna”), an indirect

opt-out

case, involving claims on various drugs, with the trial expected in January 2028; and (v) CVS Pharmacy Inc. (“CVS”), a direct

opt-out

case, involving claims on various drugs, where a trial date has not yet been set.

From 2019 to 2021, certain individual plaintiffs commenced civil actions in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis. Following defendants’ request, the cases filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County have all been placed in deferred status. One plaintiff, Aetna Inc., filed a complaint in Connecticut state court on December 30, 2024. Certain counties in New York and Texas have also commenced civil actions against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis, and the complaints have been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. On March 14, 2025 and June 9, 2025, respectively, Walmart Inc. and Southwest Airlines, Inc. filed lawsuits against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania which has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. On May 19, 2025, New York Quality Healthcare Corporation filed a lawsuit against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in New York Supreme Court, County of New York. On December 2, 2025, AT&T Services, Inc. filed a lawsuit against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and that action has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. On December 12, 2025, Taurus Acquisition Group filed a lawsuit against various manufacturers, including Teva and Actavis, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and that action has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL.

In March 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva’s donations to patient assistance programs. In August 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and for unjust enrichment (the “DOJ PAP Complaint”). It was alleged that Teva’s donations to certain 501(c)(3) charities that provided financial assistance to multiple sclerosis patients violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. On October 10, 2024, Teva entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ to resolve these claims. Under the terms of the settlement, which includes no admission of wrongdoing, Teva is required to pay $425 million over 6 years – $19 million was paid in December 2024, $34 million was paid in January 2026, $49 million is due to be paid in each of December 2026 and December 2027, $99 million is due to be paid in December 2028, and $175 million is due to be paid in December 2029. The case was dismissed with prejudice on November 19, 2024. Teva has recognized a provision for the resolution of this case. Additionally, on January 8, 2021, Humana filed an action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida based on the allegations raised in the DOJ PAP Complaint. On April 29, 2025, the court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss. On May 28, 2025, Humana

re-filed

the case in Kentucky circuit court, alleging the same facts alleged in the Florida district court action. On July 29, 2025, Teva filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part on January 15, 2026, leaving only claims for breach of various rebate agreements remaining. On November 17, 2022, United Healthcare filed an action against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey based on the conduct alleged in the DOJ PAP Complaint, followed by an amended complaint filed on February 29, 2024. On March 28, 2025, Teva moved for summary judgment limited to the statute of limitations defense as per the court’s order, and that motion is pending.

In April 2021, a city and county in Washington filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of the RICO Act, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment concerning Teva’s sale of COPAXONE. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of health plans and a subclass of Washington-based health plans that purchased and/or reimbursed health plan members for COPAXONE. Plaintiffs allege that Teva engaged in several fraudulent schemes that resulted in plaintiffs and the putative class members purchasing and/or reimbursing plan members for additional prescriptions of COPAXONE and/or at inflated COPAXONE prices. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for the excess reimbursements and inflated costs, as well as injunctive relief. On November 17, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the direct purchaser rule, suffer from jurisdictional defects, and fail to plausibly allege fraud or other elements of their claims. On March 9, 2023, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and a decision remains pending. On June 27, 2025, Teva filed a motion to lift the stay of discovery. That motion is fully briefed and remains pending.

Since May 2014, more than 3,500 complaints have been filed by various governmental agencies and private plaintiffs in U.S. state and federal courts with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates and several other pharmaceutical companies, the vast majority of which have been resolved. The majority of the remaining cases are consolidated in the multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (the “MDL Opioid Proceeding”). These cases assert claims under similar provisions of different state laws and generally allege that the defendants engaged in improper marketing and distribution of Teva’s branded opioids, including ACTIQ

and FENTORA

, and also assert claims related to Teva’s generic opioid products. In the first quarter of 2026, Teva and representatives for a class of third-party payers (“TPPs”) reached an agreement in principle to settle the TPPs’ opioid-related claims. Teva’s settlement agreement with the TPPs is contingent upon Teva’s, in the exercise of its sole discretion, satisfaction with the level of participation by the TPPs in the proposed settlement agreement.

In addition, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Furthermore, approximately 100 personal injury complaints allege that Anda (in addition to naming other distributors and manufacturers) failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent their abuse and diversion. Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages,

non-economic

damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs seek damages for all costs associated with addressing the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction and certain plaintiffs specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. All but a handful of these cases are stayed in the MDL Opioid Proceedings.

In June 2023, Teva finalized and fully resolved its nationwide settlement agreement with the states and litigating subdivisions. Under the financial terms of the nationwide settlement agreement with the states and subdivisions, Teva will pay up to $4.25 billion (including the already settled cases), spread over 13 years. This total includes the supply of up to $1.2 billion of Teva’s generic version of Narcan

(naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray), valued at wholesale acquisition cost, over 10 years or cash at 20% of the wholesale acquisition cost ($240 million) in lieu of product.

Teva has settled claims brought by 100% of the U.S. states and their litigating political subdivisions, the Native American tribes (the “Tribes”), and approximately 500 U.S. hospitals and other healthcare providers asserting opioid-related claims, including public nuisance. Teva’s estimated cash payments between 2026 and 2030 for all opioids settlements are: $379 million to be paid in 2026 (of which $30 million was paid as of March 31, 2026), $365 million payable in 2027; $416 million payable in 2028; $339 million payable in 2029; and $337 million payable in 2030. These payments are subject to change based on various factors including, but not limited to, timing of payments, most favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, and the states’ elections to take Teva’s generic version of Narcan

(naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray). The remaining payments, subject to adjustments, will be paid beyond 2030.

In light of the nationwide settlement agreement between Teva and the States’ Attorneys General and their subdivisions, Teva’s indemnification obligations arising from Teva’s acquisition of the Actavis Generics business for opioid-related claims, prior settlements reached with Louisiana, Texas, Rhode Island, Florida, San Francisco, West Virginia, New York, the Tribes, Nevada and the City of Baltimore, the agreement with the hospitals discussed above, Teva’s agreement in principle with the TPPs, as well as an estimate for a number of items including, but not limited to, costs associated with administering injunctive terms, and most favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, the Company has recorded a provision. The provision is a reasonable estimate of the ultimate costs for Teva’s opioids settlements, after discounting payments to their net present value. Opioid-related lawsuits brought against Teva by dozens of TPPs, such as unions and welfare funds, are expected to remain pending unless Teva finalizes its TPP settlement agreement. A reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined for the entirety of the remaining opioid-related cases. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of monetary and

non-monetary

relief and could have a material and adverse effect on Teva’s reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows.

In addition, Teva, certain of its subsidiaries and other defendants, are defending claims and putative class action lawsuits in Canada related to the manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of opioid medications. The lawsuits include: (i) a claim brought by the Province of British Columbia on behalf of itself and a putative class of other federal and provincial governments, (ii) claims of municipalities, (iii) claims on behalf of various First Nations groups, and (iv) consumer class actions on behalf of persons who used opioids on behalf of themselves and putative classes. On January 22, 2025, the British Columbia Supreme Court certified the class of federal and provincial governments. Defendants appealed this decision, a hearing on this appeal was held in December 2025, and a decision remains pending. The court in Quebec certified the class in the consumer class action in 2024 (and denied leave to appeal). In the first quarter of 2026, Teva reached an agreement in principle to settle claims by one national consumer class, brought in Ontario on behalf of persons who used opioids. Teva expects to memorialize the terms of the settlement during 2026 and to evaluate class participation before deciding whether to finalize the settlement. Other Canadian opioid actions remain in their preliminary stages.

In November and December 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors, which were subsequently consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation”). On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019, asserting that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities and common laws in connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering materials. From July 2017 to June 2019, other putative securities class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar allegations and claims, and were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Between August 2017 and January 2022, twenty-three complaints were filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of plaintiffs in various forums across the country, and many of those plaintiffs had

“opted-out”

of the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. On January 18, 2022, Teva entered into a settlement in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation for $420 million, which received final approval from the court on June 2, 2022. The vast majority of the total settlement amount was covered by the Company’s insurance carriers, with a small portion contributed by Teva. Additionally, as part of the settlement, Teva admitted no liability as part of the settlement and has denied all allegations of wrongdoing. Teva has settled the vast majority of

“opt-out”

claims including a class settlement with shareholders in Israel. One

opt-out

case remains pending in the U.S., with a trial scheduled for January 2027.

On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Teva and certain of its former officers. On August 10, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a corrected amended class action complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020. The corrected amended complaint alleges that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had allegedly caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva’s donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE’s commercial success and the sustainability of Teva’s revenues and resulted in the DOJ PAP Complaint filed by the DOJ. The corrected amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and legal fees. On November 3, 2023, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification, and a motion to approve a securities class action with similar allegations was also filed in September 2022 in the Central District Court in Israel, which has been stayed pending the U.S. litigation.

Teva or its subsidiaries are party to environmental proceedings under the federal Superfund law or other federal, provincial or state and local laws relating to alleged noncompliance, the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances and natural resource damages. Many of these proceedings and claims seek to require the generators of hazardous waste disposed of at a third party-owned site, or the party responsible for a release of hazardous substances, including

per-and

polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), to investigate and

clean-up

the site or to pay or reimburse others for such activities, including for oversight by governmental authorities and any related damages to natural resources. Teva or its subsidiaries have been made a party to these claims and proceedings, along with others, as an alleged generator of waste disposed of or treated at third-party waste disposal sites or as a result of an alleged release from one of Teva’s facilities or former facilities.

Although liability among responsible parties may be joint and several under certain circumstances, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of

clean-up

and other costs among the parties reflects the relative contribution of each party to site conditions, also taking into account other relevant factors. In addition, enforcement proceedings relating to alleged violations of federal, state, commonwealth or local requirements at some of Teva’s facilities could result in the imposition of penalties (in amounts not expected to materially adversely affect Teva’s results of operations) and the recovery of certain costs and natural resource damages, and may require that corrective actions and enhanced compliance measures be implemented.

The following matter is disclosed pursuant to Item 103 of Regulation

S-K

because a governmental authority is a party and it involves monetary sanctions that could exceed $300,000. On July 8, 2021, the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, issued an order against Teva’s subsidiary in India, Teva API India Private Limited, finding

non-compliance

with environmental laws in India and assessing a penalty of $1.4 million. Teva filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, disputing certain of the findings and the amount of the penalty. On August 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of India granted a stay of the judgment by the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench. On April 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India accepted the appeal filed by Teva’s subsidiary and a hearing will be scheduled in due course. Teva does not believe that the eventual outcome of this matter will have a material effect on its business and results of operations.

On January 15, 2025, Teva filed a lawsuit against the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that CMS’s implementation of the Drug Price Negotiation Program portion of the Inflation Reduction Act (“IRA”) of 2022 is arbitrary and contrary to the plain meaning of the statute, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), and is therefore unconstitutional. On November 20, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted CMS’s motion for summary judgement. Teva has appealed this decision. The appeal hearing is scheduled for May 5, 2026.

From time to time, Teva may directly or indirectly pursue claims against certain parties, including but not limited to patent infringement lawsuits against other pharmaceutical companies to protect its patent rights, as well as derivative actions brought on behalf of Teva. Teva recognizes gain contingencies from such lawsuits when they are realized or when all related contingencies have been resolved, subject to a signed or legally enforceable agreement, where applicable. No gain has been recognized regarding any matter disclosed below, unless mentioned otherwise.

In October 2017, Teva filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Eli Lilly & Co.’s (“L

illy

”) marketing and sale of its galcanezumab product for the treatment of migraine infringes on nine Teva patents, including three method of treatment patents and six composition of matter patents. Lilly then submitted inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), challenging the validity of the nine Teva patents. The PTAB issued decisions upholding the three method of treatment patents but finding the six composition of matter patents invalid, which decisions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 16, 2021. A jury trial regarding the three method of treatment patents resulted in a verdict in Teva’s favor on November 9, 2022. The jury’s verdict found that the three method of treatment patents were valid and infringed by Lilly and awarded Teva $176.5 million in damages. On September 26, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts issued a decision that reversed the jury’s verdict and damages award, finding Teva’s method of treatment patents to be invalid. Teva appealed and a hearing was held on September 5, 2025. On April 16, 2026, the U.S. Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Teva’s favor, reinstating the jury’s verdict of infringement and award of damages. Lilly may seek further review of this decision.

In March 2024, Teva filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Amarin Pharma, Inc., Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, and Amarin Corporation plc (collectively “Amarin”) engaged in a decade-long scheme to lock up the supply of icosapent ethyl to prevent and delay generic competition to its branded Vascepa

drug product. Teva’s lawsuit coincides with four other lawsuits brought by generic drug manufacturers and purchasers of branded Vascepa

alleging the same or similar conduct by Amarin. Teva’s requested relief includes compensatory damages for lost sales and lost profits from generic icosapent ethyl drug sales that Teva could have made absent Amarin’s alleged interference. On May 24, 2024, Amarin filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada, seeking to enforce the terms of an earlier Teva-Amarin agreement to settle patent litigation regarding Vascepa

, which Amarin asserted precluded Teva from filing the present antitrust action. On December 4, 2024, the Nevada court denied Amarin’s motion. On October 8, 2025, Amarin filed a motion with the U.S. District Court of the District of New Jersey, where the case is pending, seeking judgment on the pleadings on the same grounds as its motion in Nevada. On February 2, 2026, the Court denied Amarin’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. As the lawsuit is still in its initial stages, it is not possible to predict its outcome and there is no guarantee that Teva will be granted its requested relief.

In June 2024, Teva filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging that Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. (“Corcept”) and Optime Care Inc. (“Optime”) engaged in a multifaceted, years-long scheme to stifle generic competition to Corcept’s branded Korlym

(mifepristone) drug product, which is indicated to treat endogenous Cushing’s syndrome. Teva alleges that Corcept and Optime have suppressed competition by abusing the patent and judicial systems, entering a long-term, blanket exclusive-dealing agreement that has locked up a key pharmaceutical distribution channel, and making illicit payments to physicians as compensation for prescribing Korlym

. Teva’s requested relief includes compensatory damages for lost sales and lost profits from generic mifepristone drug sales that Teva could have made absent Corcept and Optime’s alleged interference, as well as injunctive relief to remove the unlawful barriers to generic competition created by Corcept and Optime. Teva filed an amended complaint in September 2024. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss in October 2024, which the court denied in substantial part on September 12, 2025. On September 26, 2025, Teva filed an amended complaint amending certain claims that were dismissed. On October 31, 2025, Corcept and Optime filed a motion to dismiss certain claims in Teva’s second amended complaint. Briefing on that motion is now complete and a decision remains pending. On January 29, 2026, Teva filed an amended complaint, adding a new claim for unlawful exclusive dealing against Corcept. On February 5, 2026, Corcept and Optime filed supplemental briefs in support of their joint motion to dismiss. Briefing on that motion is complete and a decision remains pending. Discovery is ongoing. As the lawsuit is still in its initial stages, it is not possible to predict its outcome and there is no guarantee that Teva will be granted its requested relief.