During the normal course of business, we make indemnities, commitments and guarantees pursuant to which we may be required to make payments related to specific transactions. Indemnifications include: (i) intellectual property indemnities to customers in connection with the use, sales or license of products and services; (ii) indemnities to customers in connection with losses incurred while performing services on their premises; (iii) indemnities to vendors and service providers pertaining to claims based on negligence or willful misconduct; (iv) indemnities involving the representations and warranties in certain contracts; and (v) contractual indemnities for our directors and certain of our executive officers for services provided to or at the request of us. In addition, under our Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation, and consistent with Delaware General Corporation Law, we have agreed

to indemnify our directors and officers for certain losses and expenses upon the occurrence of certain prescribed events. The majority of these indemnities, commitments and guarantees do not provide for any limitation on the maximum potential for future payments that we could be obligated to make. To help address some of these risks, we maintain various insurance coverages. Based on historical experience and evaluation of the agreements, we do not believe that any payments related to our indemnities will have a material impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

We are involved in product liability, patent, commercial, and other legal matters that arise in the normal course of our business. We record a liability when a loss is considered probable and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the reasonable estimate of a probable loss is a range, and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount in the range is accrued. If a loss is not probable or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no liability is recorded. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, our total recorded reserves with respect to legal and environmental matters were $28 million and $72 million, respectively.

We have established reserves for certain of the matters discussed below. We are not able to estimate the amount or range of any loss for certain contingencies for which there is no reserve or additional loss for matters already reserved. While our liability in connection with these claims cannot be estimated and the resolution thereof in any reporting period could have a significant impact on our results of operations and cash flows for that period, the outcome of these legal proceedings is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position. While we believe that we have valid defenses in the matters set forth below, litigation is inherently uncertain, excessive verdicts do occur, and we may incur material judgments or enter into material settlements of claims.

In addition to the matters described below, we remain subject to the risk of future administrative and legal actions. With respect to governmental and regulatory matters, these actions may lead to product recalls, injunctions, and other restrictions on our operations and monetary sanctions, including significant civil or criminal penalties, all of which could materially affect future results of operations. With respect to intellectual property, we may be exposed to significant litigation concerning the scope of our and others’ rights. Such litigation could result in a loss of patent protection or the ability to market products, which could lead to a significant loss of sales, or otherwise materially affect future results of operations.

We are involved as a potentially responsible party (PRP) for environmental clean-up costs at six Superfund sites. Under the U.S. Superfund statute and many state laws, generators of hazardous waste sent to a disposal or recycling site are liable for site cleanup if contaminants from that property later leak into the environment. The laws generally provide that a PRP may be held jointly and severally liable for the costs of investigating and remediating the site. Separate from the Superfund cases noted above, we are involved in ongoing environmental remediations associated with historic operations at certain of our facilities. As of December 31, 2022 and 2021, our environmental reserves, which are measured on an undiscounted basis, were $19 million and $18 million, respectively. After considering these reserves, the outcome of these matters is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position or results of operations.

In August 2019, we were named in an amended complaint filed by Fayette County, Georgia in the MDL In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio. The complaint alleges that multiple manufacturers and distributors of opiate products improperly marketed and diverted these products, which caused harm to Fayette County. The complaint is limited in its allegations as to Baxter and does not distinguish between injectable opiate products and orally administered opiates. We manufactured generic injectable opiate products in our facility in Cherry Hill, NJ, which we divested in 2011.

In November 2019, we and certain of our officers were named in a class action complaint captioned Ethan E. Silverman et al. v. Baxter International Inc. et al. that was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiff, who allegedly purchased shares of our common stock during the specified class period, filed this putative class action on behalf of himself and shareholders who acquired Baxter common stock between February 21, 2019 and October 23, 2019. The plaintiff alleged that we and certain officers violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by

making allegedly false and misleading statements and failing to disclose material facts relating to certain intra-company transactions undertaken for the purpose of generating foreign exchange gains or avoiding foreign exchange losses, as well as our internal controls over financial reporting. On January 29, 2020, the Court appointed Varma Mutual Pension Insurance Company and Louisiana Municipal Police Employees Retirement System as lead plaintiffs in the case. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 25, 2020 containing substantially the same allegations. On August 24, 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On January 12, 2021, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the amended complaint but gave plaintiffs an opportunity to file a further-amended complaint. The parties reached an agreement to settle the case for $16 million, subject to the completion of confirmatory discovery and final approval by the Court. The Court granted final approval of the settlement on August 11, 2021 and the settlement became effective on September 13, 2021.

As initially disclosed in our Form 8-K on October 24, 2019, we voluntarily advised the staff of the SEC of an internal investigation into certain intra-company transactions that impacted our previously reported non-operating foreign exchange gains and losses. We also received a stockholder request for inspection of our books and records in connection with the October 24, 2019 announcement. The Company cooperated with the staff of the SEC in its investigation into related matters, and on February 18, 2022, we reached a settlement with the SEC. Without admitting or denying the findings in the administrative order issued by the SEC, we agreed to pay a civil penalty of $18 million and to cease and desist from violations of specified provisions of the federal securities laws and related rules. In the order, the SEC acknowledged the Company’s cooperation. We paid the penalty in the first quarter of 2022.

In March 2020, two lawsuits were filed against us in the Northern District of Illinois by plaintiffs alleging injuries as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide used in our manufacturing facility in Mountain Home, Arkansas to sterilize certain of our products. The plaintiffs sought damages, including compensatory and punitive damages in an unspecified amount, and unspecified injunctive and declaratory relief. The parties reached agreement to settle these lawsuits in the third quarter of 2021 for amounts that are not material to our financial results, which were paid in the fourth quarter of 2021. We have since resolved, without litigation, additional claims of injuries from exposure to ethylene oxide at Mountain Home for amounts within accruals previously established as of December 31, 2021. On October 20, 2022, a lawsuit was filed against us in the Western District of Arkansas alleging injury as a result of exposure to ethylene oxide at Mountain Home. On December 16, 2022, we filed a motion to dismiss and for a more definite statement. In response, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on January 6, 2023. We answered the First Amended Complaint on January 27, 2023.

In July 2021, Hill-Rom, Inc. received a subpoena (from the United States Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (the DHHS) requesting documents and information related to compliance with the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute. Hillrom has been working with the DHHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to provide information responsive to the subpoena. Hillrom also voluntarily began a related internal review and Hillrom and now Baxter have been cooperating fully with the DHHS and the DOJ with respect to these matters. In October 2022, the DOJ issued a separate Civil Investigative Demand (CID) addressed to Hillrom, requesting documents and information related to compliance with the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute. Baxter intends to cooperate with the DOJ in responding to the CID. The DHHS and DOJ often issue these types of requests when investigating alleged violations of the False Claims Act.

On December 28, 2021, Linet Americas, Inc. (Linet) filed a complaint against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc., and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, captioned Linet Americas, Inc. v. Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc.; Hill-Rom Company, Inc.; Hill-Rom Services, Inc. Linet alleges that Hillrom violated Sections 1, 2 and 3 of The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Illinois Antitrust Act by allegedly engaging in anti-competitive conduct in alleged markets for standard, ICU and birthing beds. Hillrom filed an answer to the complaint on January 28, 2022 and filed a motion challenging certain aspects of plaintiff's case on May 27, 2022.