Litigation	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2025
Litigation
Litigation	Litigation Sandoz Litigation In April 2019, Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) and its marketing partner RareGen, LLC (now known as Liquidia PAH, LLC, a subsidiary of Liquidia Corporation) (RareGen), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against us and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc. (Smiths Medical), alleging that we and Smiths Medical engaged in anticompetitive conduct in connection with the plaintiffs’ efforts to launch their generic version of Remodulin. In particular, the complaint alleged that we and Smiths Medical unlawfully impeded competition by entering into an agreement for Smiths Medical to produce cartridges used with the CADD-MS®3 (MS-3) infusion system specifically for the delivery of subcutaneous Remodulin for our patients, without making these cartridges available for the delivery of Sandoz’s generic treprostinil injection. In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add a count alleging that we breached our earlier patent settlement agreement with Sandoz by refusing to grant Sandoz access to cartridges purchased for our patients. Smiths Medical was dismissed from the case in November 2020, based on a settlement resolving the disputes between the plaintiffs and Smiths Medical. As part of this settlement, Smiths Medical paid the plaintiffs $4.25 million, disclosed and made available to the plaintiffs certain specifications and other information related to the MS-3 cartridges, and granted to the plaintiffs a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in the United States to Smiths Medical’s patents and copyrights associated with the MS-3 cartridges and certain other information related to the MS-3 pumps and cartridges. In March 2022, the court granted our motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims brought by the plaintiffs except the breach of contract claim. As a result, all antitrust claims, all claims under state competition laws, and the common law tortious interference claim were resolved in our favor. These were the only claims in the case that gave rise to any potential for trebling of damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and/or the award of attorneys’ fees. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief. The court granted Sandoz’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Sandoz’s breach of contract claim. RareGen has no claim for breach of contract and, as a result, has no remaining claims in the litigation. The issue of what, if any, damages Sandoz is entitled to based on the court’s decision on the contract claim went to trial on April 29, 2024, and the court heard closing arguments on June 4, 2024. The trial was limited to determining the amount of damages under the breach of contract claim. The court issued an opinion on September 6, 2024, but did not determine the amount of damages with specificity. The court directed the parties to confer about the amount of damages based on the opinion and submit a proposed judgment with an amount of damages based on the factual findings in the opinion. On October 7, 2024, the parties submitted to the court their respective positions on damages. On November 1, 2024, the court entered a final judgment in favor of Sandoz, ordering us to pay to Sandoz (a) approximately $61.6 million in damages; (b) prejudgment interest in the amount of approximately $9.0 million; and (c) post-judgment interest. All parties have appealed the final judgment, including the court’s March 30, 2022 summary judgment decision. We accrued a liability of $71.1 million during 2024, and an additional $0.7 million through the first quarter of 2025, reflecting, in the aggregate, the damages and pre-judgment interest amounts awarded in the final judgment, as well as post-judgment interest accrued through March 31, 2025. We currently do not expect that the amount of any loss in excess of these accruals would be material to our financial results; however, the amount ultimately payable, if any, could be higher or lower than this amount depending on the amount of post judgment interest, and the outcome of appeals. We recorded this liability within other non-current liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made in this litigation. Among other things, we believe our settlement agreement with Sandoz did not provide Sandoz any rights with respect to delivery systems such as the MS-3. We also believe that the plaintiffs, who were on notice that Smiths Medical would discontinue the MS-3 system, failed to fulfill their duty to properly mitigate their exposure as a result of such discontinuation, and any damages they incurred are the result of market conditions and their own failure to properly plan their own product launch. However, due to the uncertainty inherent in any litigation, we cannot guarantee that appeals will not result in an outcome adverse to us. This litigation has involved, and will likely continue to involve, substantial cost to defend, and an adverse appellate outcome could result in substantial monetary damages in excess of the liability we have accrued to-date. Litigation with Liquidia Technologies, Inc. Since March 2020, we have been engaged in litigation with Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (Liquidia) regarding its efforts to obtain FDA approval for Yutrepia™, a dry powder inhalation formulation of treprostinil. That litigation has included two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Liquidia with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as well as multiple lawsuits we have brought alleging infringement by Liquidia of several of our patents. Most of these cases have now been finally resolved, and Liquidia has tentative approval from the FDA to market Yutrepia to treat PAH and PH-ILD following expiration of FDA-conferred exclusivity on May 23, 2025. We have one ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against Liquidia, which was originally filed on September 5, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793 (the ’793 patent), a patent related to Tyvaso with an expiration date in May 2027 that was later invalidated as a result of an IPR proceeding, and therefore is no longer at issue in this litigation. On November 30, 2023, we filed an amended complaint to assert a new patent: U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327 (the ’327 patent), which is now the only patent remaining at issue in the case. The claims of the ’327 patent generally cover improving exercise capacity in patients suffering from PH-ILD by inhaling treprostinil at specific dosages. This case is pending, and trial is set for June 2025. In June 2021, we filed a motion in one of our patent cases against Liquidia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to file an amended complaint adding trade secret misappropriation claims against Liquidia and a former Liquidia employee, Dr. Robert Roscigno. The court denied the motion based on a finding that adding the additional claims would impact the case schedule. Thus, we filed those claims as a separate case against Liquidia and Dr. Roscigno in North Carolina state court. Discovery is complete. On January 5, 2024, Dr. Roscigno filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on July 31, 2024. On July 3, 2024, Liquidia filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. We commenced a separate, related case against Liquidia and Dr. Roscigno in North Carolina state court on May 9, 2024, and filed a complaint in this case including a claim for breach of contract on May 29, 2024. On April 21, 2025, Liquidia filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that Tyvaso DPI infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,898,494. This patent’s claims are directed to the treatment of pulmonary hypertension by administering specified amounts of treprostinil via a dry powder inhaler in a specified number of breaths. The patent expires May 5, 2037. Liquidia seeks damages and attorneys’ fees. We plan to continue to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights related to Tyvaso DPI and nebulized Tyvaso. In addition, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made by Liquidia in its patent infringement lawsuit against us, which we believe is without merit. FDA Litigation Regarding Yutrepia On February 20, 2024, we filed an action against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding the FDA’s review of Liquidia’s efforts to obtain a PH-ILD indication for its Yutrepia product. Liquidia had previously submitted an amendment to its pending Yutrepia NDA to pursue approval for a PH-ILD indication. Our suit alleged that FDA rules, precedents, and procedures require that such a new indication be pursued in a new NDA rather than as an amendment to a pending NDA. Thus, we asked the FDA to require Liquidia to submit a new NDA if it desires to further pursue approval for a PH-ILD indication. On March 4, 2024, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order seeking to prevent the FDA from approving the PH-ILD indication for Yutrepia by amendment. The court denied that motion on March 29, 2024, following a hearing on the motion. On August 16, 2024, the FDA (1) confirmed that it was permitting Liquidia to add the PH-ILD indication to its pending Yutrepia NDA by amendment rather than requiring a new NDA and provided an explanation for that decision; and (2) granted Liquidia tentative approval for its Yutrepia NDA, including the PAH and PH-ILD indications. The FDA granted tentative rather than final approval because it determined that we are entitled to a period of exclusivity based on a clinical trial that we conducted to obtain approval for the PH-ILD indication, and that this exclusivity bars final approval of Liquidia’s product until expiration of exclusivity in May 2025. Following the FDA’s decisions, we voluntarily dismissed our case against the FDA. On August 21, 2024, Liquidia filed an action against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the FDA’s decisions to award us exclusivity and to withhold final approval for Yutrepia until that exclusivity has expired. We intervened, and the parties briefed and argued cross-motions for summary judgment and preliminary injunction. On February 27, 2025, the court issued a decision affirming the FDA’s award of exclusivity. We also asserted a cross-claim against the FDA for improperly permitting Liquidia to pursue a PH-ILD indication in an amendment rather than a new NDA. This cross-claim is substantively identical to the claim we asserted against FDA in the action described above that we dismissed. We filed a motion for summary judgment on that cross-claim on January 17, 2025. On April 17, 2025, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction on our cross-claim related to the PH-ILD indication that the FDA allowed Liquidia to pursue in an NDA amendment. MSP Recovery Litigation In July 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, filed a class action complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that we violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a PAH fund so that those donations would go toward copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by us. The plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for our drugs. In April 2021, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In October 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes state antitrust claims based on alleged facts similar to those raised by Sandoz and RareGen in the matter described above. The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. In December 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims in the amended complaint, including the new antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against Smiths Medical. In September 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims against us and Smiths Medical without prejudice. In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other states’ laws to the claims previously asserted. The second amended complaint also named Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Holding Company (collectively, the Specialty Pharmacies), and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants. In March 2023, we filed our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Specialty Pharmacies filed their own motion to dismiss, as did Smiths Medical. On March 22, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice, and for administrative purposes, issued an order dismissing the complaint. On April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. On May 10, 2024, we filed a response to the plaintiffs’ objection, as did the other defendants. If the district court judge adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismisses the case, the plaintiffs will have the right to appeal. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made in this lawsuit. Litigation with Humana and United Healthcare Humana Inc. (Humana) and United Healthcare Services, Inc. (United) filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in December 2022 and November 2022, respectively. Each of these lawsuits includes allegations similar to those in the MSP Recovery matter discussed above concerning our charitable contributions to CVC. In particular, these lawsuits allege that our donations to CVC violated RICO and various state laws. We filed motions to dismiss both of these lawsuits in March 2023. On March 25, 2024, the court dismissed both the Humana and United complaints in their entirety. In both cases, the RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice. In the Humana case, the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and in the United case, some of the state law claims were dismissed with prejudice, while others were dismissed without prejudice. Neither Humana nor United filed an appeal to date, and their deadlines for filing appeals have passed. On April 24, 2024, Humana and United each filed lawsuits against us in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. These lawsuits include allegations similar to those in their lawsuits discussed above concerning charitable contributions. Humana and United allege that our donations to CVC give rise to common law causes of action, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and violations of insurance fraud statutes under the laws of various states. On July 22, 2024, we filed motions to dismiss both of these lawsuits. Oral argument on these motions to dismiss took place on October 24, 2024. We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made in these lawsuits.

In April 2019, Sandoz Inc. (Sandoz) and its marketing partner RareGen, LLC (now known as Liquidia PAH, LLC, a subsidiary of Liquidia Corporation) (RareGen), filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against us and Smiths Medical ASD, Inc. (Smiths Medical), alleging that we and Smiths Medical engaged in anticompetitive conduct in connection with the plaintiffs’ efforts to launch their generic version of Remodulin. In particular, the complaint alleged that we and Smiths Medical unlawfully impeded competition by entering into an agreement for Smiths Medical to produce cartridges used with the CADD-MS®3 (MS-3) infusion system specifically for the delivery of subcutaneous Remodulin for our patients,

without making these cartridges available for the delivery of Sandoz’s generic treprostinil injection. In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint to add a count alleging that we breached our earlier patent settlement agreement with Sandoz by refusing to grant Sandoz access to cartridges purchased for our patients.

Smiths Medical was dismissed from the case in November 2020, based on a settlement resolving the disputes between the plaintiffs and Smiths Medical. As part of this settlement, Smiths Medical paid the plaintiffs $4.25 million, disclosed and made available to the plaintiffs certain specifications and other information related to the MS-3 cartridges, and granted to the plaintiffs a non-exclusive, royalty-free license in the United States to Smiths Medical’s patents and copyrights associated with the MS-3 cartridges and certain other information related to the MS-3 pumps and cartridges.

In March 2022, the court granted our motion for summary judgment with respect to all claims brought by the plaintiffs except the breach of contract claim. As a result, all antitrust claims, all claims under state competition laws, and the common law tortious interference claim were resolved in our favor. These were the only claims in the case that gave rise to any potential for trebling of damages, punitive damages, disgorgement, and/or the award of attorneys’ fees. The court also denied the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief.

The court granted Sandoz’s motion for summary judgment with respect to Sandoz’s breach of contract claim. RareGen has no claim for breach of contract and, as a result, has no remaining claims in the litigation. The issue of what, if any, damages Sandoz is entitled to based on the court’s decision on the contract claim went to trial on April 29, 2024, and the court heard closing arguments on June 4, 2024. The trial was limited to determining the amount of damages under the breach of contract claim. The court issued an opinion on September 6, 2024, but did not determine the amount of damages with specificity. The court directed the parties to confer about the amount of damages based on the opinion and submit a proposed judgment with an amount of damages based on the factual findings in the opinion. On October 7, 2024, the parties submitted to the court their respective positions on damages. On November 1, 2024, the court entered a final judgment in favor of Sandoz, ordering us to pay to Sandoz (a) approximately $61.6 million in damages; (b) prejudgment interest in the amount of approximately $9.0 million; and (c) post-judgment interest. All parties have appealed the final judgment, including the court’s March 30, 2022 summary judgment decision.

We accrued a liability of $71.1 million during 2024, and an additional $0.7 million through the first quarter of 2025, reflecting, in the aggregate, the damages and pre-judgment interest amounts awarded in the final judgment, as well as post-judgment interest accrued through March 31, 2025. We currently do not expect that the amount of any loss in excess of these accruals would be material to our financial results; however, the amount ultimately payable, if any, could be higher or lower than this amount depending on the amount of post judgment interest, and the outcome of appeals. We recorded this liability within other non-current liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.

We intend to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made in this litigation. Among other things, we believe our settlement agreement with Sandoz did not provide Sandoz any rights with respect to delivery systems such as the MS-3. We also believe that the plaintiffs, who were on notice that Smiths Medical would discontinue the MS-3 system, failed to fulfill their duty to properly mitigate their exposure as a result of such discontinuation, and any damages they incurred are the result of market conditions and their own failure to properly plan their own product launch. However, due to the uncertainty inherent in any litigation, we cannot guarantee that appeals will not result in an outcome adverse to us. This litigation has involved, and will likely continue to involve, substantial cost to defend, and an adverse appellate outcome could result in substantial monetary damages in excess of the liability we have accrued to-date.

Since March 2020, we have been engaged in litigation with Liquidia Technologies, Inc. (Liquidia) regarding its efforts to obtain FDA approval for Yutrepia™, a dry powder inhalation formulation of treprostinil. That litigation has included two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Liquidia with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), as well as multiple lawsuits we have brought alleging infringement by Liquidia of several of our patents. Most of these cases have now been finally resolved, and Liquidia has tentative approval from the FDA to market Yutrepia to treat PAH and PH-ILD following expiration of FDA-conferred exclusivity on May 23, 2025.

We have one ongoing patent infringement lawsuit against Liquidia, which was originally filed on September 5, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 10,716,793 (the ’793 patent), a patent related to Tyvaso with an expiration date in May 2027 that was later invalidated as a result of an IPR proceeding, and therefore is no longer at issue in this litigation. On November 30, 2023, we filed an amended complaint to assert a new patent: U.S. Patent No. 11,826,327 (the ’327 patent), which is now the only patent remaining at issue in the case. The claims of the ’327 patent generally cover improving exercise capacity in patients suffering from PH-ILD by inhaling treprostinil at specific dosages. This case is pending, and trial is set for June 2025.

In June 2021, we filed a motion in one of our patent cases against Liquidia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware to file an amended complaint adding trade secret misappropriation claims against Liquidia and a former Liquidia employee, Dr. Robert Roscigno. The court denied the motion based on a finding that adding the additional claims would impact the case schedule. Thus, we filed those claims as a separate case against Liquidia and Dr. Roscigno in North Carolina state court. Discovery is complete. On January 5, 2024, Dr. Roscigno filed a motion for summary judgment, which was denied on July 31, 2024. On July 3, 2024, Liquidia filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending. We commenced a separate, related

On April 21, 2025, Liquidia filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, alleging that Tyvaso DPI infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,898,494. This patent’s claims are directed to the treatment of pulmonary hypertension by administering specified amounts of treprostinil via a dry powder inhaler in a specified number of breaths. The patent expires May 5, 2037. Liquidia seeks damages and attorneys’ fees.

We plan to continue to vigorously enforce our intellectual property rights related to Tyvaso DPI and nebulized Tyvaso. In addition, we intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the claims made by Liquidia in its patent infringement lawsuit against us, which we believe is without merit.

On February 20, 2024, we filed an action against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia regarding the FDA’s review of Liquidia’s efforts to obtain a PH-ILD indication for its Yutrepia product. Liquidia had previously submitted an amendment to its pending Yutrepia NDA to pursue approval for a PH-ILD indication. Our suit alleged that FDA rules, precedents, and procedures require that such a new indication be pursued in a new NDA rather than as an amendment to a pending NDA. Thus, we asked the FDA to require Liquidia to submit a new NDA if it desires to further pursue approval for a PH-ILD indication.

On March 4, 2024, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order seeking to prevent the FDA from approving the PH-ILD indication for Yutrepia by amendment. The court denied that motion on March 29, 2024, following a hearing on the motion.

On August 16, 2024, the FDA (1) confirmed that it was permitting Liquidia to add the PH-ILD indication to its pending Yutrepia NDA by amendment rather than requiring a new NDA and provided an explanation for that decision; and (2) granted Liquidia tentative approval for its Yutrepia NDA, including the PAH and PH-ILD indications. The FDA granted tentative rather than final approval because it determined that we are entitled to a period of exclusivity based on a clinical trial that we conducted to obtain approval for the PH-ILD indication, and that this exclusivity bars final approval of Liquidia’s product until expiration of exclusivity in May 2025. Following the FDA’s decisions, we voluntarily dismissed our case against the FDA.

On August 21, 2024, Liquidia filed an action against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia challenging the FDA’s decisions to award us exclusivity and to withhold final approval for Yutrepia until that exclusivity has expired. We intervened, and the parties briefed and argued cross-motions for summary judgment and preliminary injunction. On February 27, 2025, the court issued a decision affirming the FDA’s award of exclusivity.

We also asserted a cross-claim against the FDA for improperly permitting Liquidia to pursue a PH-ILD indication in an amendment rather than a new NDA. This cross-claim is substantively identical to the claim we asserted against FDA in the action described above that we dismissed. We filed a motion for summary judgment on that cross-claim on January 17, 2025.

In July 2020, MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; MSPA Claims 1, LLC; and Series PMPI, a designated series of MAO-MSO Recovery II, LLC, filed a class action complaint against Caring Voices Coalition, Inc. (CVC) and us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleged that we violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act and various state laws by coordinating with CVC when making donations to a PAH fund so that those donations would go toward copayment obligations for Medicare patients taking drugs manufactured and marketed by us. The plaintiffs claim to have received assignments from various Medicare Advantage health plans and other insurance entities that allow them to bring this lawsuit on behalf of those entities to recover allegedly inflated amounts they paid for our drugs. In April 2021, the court granted our motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

In October 2021, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that includes state antitrust claims based on alleged facts similar to those raised by Sandoz and RareGen in the matter described above. The amended complaint added MSP Recovery Claims Series 44, LLC as a plaintiff and Smiths Medical and CVC as defendants. In December 2021, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the plaintiffs’ claims in the amended complaint, including the new antitrust claims. Smiths Medical also filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims against Smiths Medical. In September 2022, the court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims against us and Smiths Medical without prejudice.

In October 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which added federal antitrust claims and consumer protection claims under other states’ laws to the claims previously asserted. The second amended complaint also named Accredo Health Group, CVS Health Corporation, Express Scripts, Inc., and Express Scripts Holding Company (collectively, the Specialty Pharmacies), and the Adira Foundation as additional defendants. In March 2023, we filed our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. The Specialty Pharmacies filed their own motion to dismiss, as did Smiths Medical. On March 22, 2024, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint against all defendants in its entirety with prejudice, and for administrative purposes, issued an order dismissing the complaint. On April 12, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. On May 10, 2024, we filed a response to the plaintiffs’ objection, as did the other defendants. If the district court judge adopts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dismisses the case, the plaintiffs will have the right to appeal.

Humana Inc. (Humana) and United Healthcare Services, Inc. (United) filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in December 2022 and November 2022, respectively. Each of these lawsuits includes allegations similar to those in the MSP Recovery matter discussed above concerning our charitable contributions to CVC. In particular, these lawsuits allege that our donations to CVC violated RICO and various state laws. We filed motions to dismiss both of these lawsuits in March 2023. On March 25, 2024, the court dismissed both the Humana and United complaints in their entirety. In both cases, the RICO claims were dismissed with prejudice. In the Humana case, the state law claims were dismissed without prejudice, and in the United case, some of the state law claims were dismissed with prejudice, while others were dismissed without prejudice. Neither Humana nor United filed an appeal to date, and their deadlines for filing appeals have passed.

On April 24, 2024, Humana and United each filed lawsuits against us in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland. These lawsuits include allegations similar to those in their lawsuits discussed above concerning charitable contributions. Humana and United allege that our donations to CVC give rise to common law causes of action, violations of state consumer protection statutes, and violations of insurance fraud statutes under the laws of various states. On July 22, 2024, we filed motions to dismiss both of these lawsuits. Oral argument on these motions to dismiss took place on October 24, 2024.