LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND CONTINGENCIES BMS and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations, and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, partners, suppliers, service providers, licensees, licensors, employees, or shareholders, among others. These matters may involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability, and insurance coverage, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. Legal proceedings that are significant or that BMS believes could become significant or material are described below. We are vigorously defending against the legal proceedings in which we are named as defendants and we believe we have substantial claims and/or defenses in each matter. While the outcomes of these proceedings and other contingencies BMS is subject to are inherently unpredictable and uncertain, we do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on BMS’ financial position or liquidity, though they could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period. There can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of one or more of the matters described below or that any other or future lawsuits, claims, government investigations, or other legal proceedings will not be material to BMS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows for a particular period. Furthermore, failure to successfully enforce BMS’s patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition. Contingency accruals are recognized when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. If BMS is unable to assess the outcome of a matter or estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from such matter, a liability is not recorded. Developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause changes in the amounts previously accrued are evaluated each reporting period. For a discussion of BMS’s tax contingencies, see " — Note 7. Income Taxes." INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Eliquis - Europe BMS is involved in litigations throughout Europe against companies seeking to launch generic apixaban products prior to the expiration of the composition-of-matter patent for Eliquis and its associated SPCs. Litigations are pending or have been concluded in: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. Trials or preliminary proceedings on the merits have been held in: Belgium, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK. To date BMS has obtained decisions in the following countries: •BMS obtained a final negative decision in the UK, and generics are now on the market in this country. •BMS obtained final positive decisions in Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. •BMS obtained initial negative decisions in Finland, Ireland, and Slovakia. In Finland and Slovakia, appeals are pending. In Ireland, the appeals court remanded the case to the lower court for rehearing. •BMS obtained initial positive decisions in the Czech Republic, Belgium, France, Greece and Netherlands, and appeals are pending in France and Netherlands. In the Czech Republic, the appeal court remanded the case to the lower court. •In Finland, Denmark and Poland, generics have entered the market while proceedings are pending. In Portugal, BMS obtained preliminary injunctions against two generic companies, but one generic company remains on the market while proceedings are pending. Generic manufacturers may seek to market generic versions of Eliquis in additional countries in Europe prior to the expiration of our patents, which may lead to additional infringement and invalidity actions involving Eliquis patents being filed in various countries in Europe. Pomalyst - U.S. In December 2024, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Cipla USA, Inc. (“Cipla”) notifying Celgene that Cipla had filed an ANDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic pomalidomide products in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against Cipla in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. No trial date has been scheduled. In April 2025, Celgene received a Notice Letter from USV Private Limited (“USV”) notifying Celgene that USV had filed an ANDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic pomalidomide products in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against USV in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. No trial date has been scheduled. In June 2025, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Deva Holding A/S (“Deva”) notifying Celgene that Deva had filed an ANDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic pomalidomide products in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against Deva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. No trial date has been scheduled. Zeposia - U.S. In May and June 2024, BMS received Notice Letters from Synthon BV (“Synthon”) and Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), respectively, each notifying BMS that it has filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval of a generic version of Zeposia in the U.S. and challenging a polymorph patent listed in the Orange Book for Zeposia but not the composition of matter patent. In response, BMS filed patent infringement actions against Synthon and Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In September 2024, the district court consolidated the Synthon and Apotex actions and trial is scheduled for February 2027. PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION Plavix* - Hawaii BMS and certain Sanofi entities are defendants in a consumer protection action brought by the attorney general of Hawaii relating to the labeling, sales and/or promotion of Plavix*. In February 2021, a Hawaii state court judge issued a decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $834 million, with $417 million attributed to BMS. In March 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court decision, vacating the penalty award and remanding the case for a new trial and penalty determination. Following a new trial, in May 2024, the trial court issued a new decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $916 million, with $458 million attributed to BMS. Sanofi and BMS appealed the decision. In May 2025, BMS and Sanofi executed a settlement agreement with the State of Hawaii to resolve the case for a total amount of $700 million, with $350 million attributable to and paid by BMS in the second quarter of 2025. SECURITIES LITIGATION Celgene Securities Litigations Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Celgene Securities Class Action”). The complaints alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws. The district court consolidated the two actions. In December 2019, the district court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. In November 2020, the district court certified a class of Celgene common stock purchasers between April 27, 2017 through April 28, 2018. Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted in part and denied in part. Certain entities filed individual actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action. These actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment in these consolidated actions. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of the above Celgene Securities Litigations. Contingent Value Rights Litigations In June 2021, an action was filed against BMS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of alleged breaches of a Contingent Value Rights Agreement (“CVR Agreement”) entered into in connection with the closing of BMS’s acquisition of Celgene in November 2019. An entity claiming to be the successor trustee under the CVR Agreement alleged that BMS breached the CVR Agreement by allegedly failing to use “diligent efforts” to obtain FDA approval of liso-cel (Breyanzi) before a contractual milestone date, thereby allegedly avoiding a $6.4 billion potential obligation to holders of the contingent value rights governed by the CVR Agreement and by allegedly failing to permit inspection of records in response to a request by the alleged successor trustee. The plaintiff sought damages in an amount to be determined at trial and other relief, including interest and attorneys’ fees. BMS disputes the allegations. BMS filed a motion to dismiss the alleged successor trustee’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which was denied in June 2022. In February 2024, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In September 2024, the court granted BMS’s motion and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to the refiling of a new lawsuit by a properly appointed trustee. The plaintiff has appealed, and BMS has cross-appealed from the denial of its first motion to dismiss. In November 2024, the same entity claiming to be successor trustee filed a new lawsuit against BMS making similar allegations to the previously dismissed case and attempting to remedy its jurisdictional deficiency. The plaintiff’s new complaint also names the current CVR Agreement Trustee and seeks a judgment that plaintiff is Trustee. In January 2025, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In February 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In March 2025, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. Former Celgene stockholders have filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of Celgene stockholders who received CVRs in the BMS merger with Celgene for violations of the securities laws relating to the joint proxy statement. Those cases were consolidated into a single case. In March 2023, the Court granted BMS’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Certain of the claims were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed with leave to file a further amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed in April 2023. In February 2024, the Court granted BMS’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal. In November 2021, an alleged Celgene stockholder filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, asserting claims on behalf of two separate putative classes, one of acquirers of CVRs and one of acquirers of BMS common stock, for violations of securities laws. In June 2024, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety without prejudice to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint which was dismissed with prejudice in February 2025. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal. No trial dates have been scheduled in any of the above CVR Litigations. OTHER LITIGATION IRA Litigation On June 16, 2023, BMS filed a lawsuit against HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, et al., challenging the constitutionality of the drug-pricing program in the IRA. That program requires pharmaceutical companies, like BMS, under the threat of significant penalties, to sell certain of their medicines at government-dictated prices. In April 2024, the court denied BMS’s motion for summary judgment and granted the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. BMS appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. 340B Litigation On November 26, 2024, BMS filed a lawsuit against Carole Johnson, Administrator of Health Resources & Services Administration (“HRSA”) and Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of HHS, challenging HRSA’s determination that BMS could not implement a cash rebate model for the 340B drug pricing program. BMS is seeking a determination that HRSA’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution. In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted HRSA summary judgment on BMS’s claims. BMS has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Thalomid and Revlimid Litigations Beginning in November 2014, putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with, among other things, activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Revlimid patents. In October 2020, the district court entered a final order approving a class settlement and dismissed the matter. Certain entities—including entities that opted out of the settlement class and others who claim that their suits are not covered by that settlement—have since filed additional suits against Celgene and BMS pursuing similar claims based on related theories, and a subset of plaintiffs brought additional claims related to copay assistance for Thalomid and Revlimid. Those new suits are principally being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Court dismissed certain of those complaints with leave to amend in June 2024. All plaintiffs filed amended complaints in August 2024. BMS and Celgene have filed motions to dismiss those complaints, which are currently pending. Related actions are also pending in San Francisco Superior Court and the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. No activity is expected in these cases until disposition of the New Jersey actions. No trial dates have been scheduled. Pomalyst Antitrust Class Action Beginning in September 2023, certain entities filed putative class actions against Celgene, BMS, and certain individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under various antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws in connection with activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Pomalyst patents. In March 2025, the court dismissed the complaints against Celgene, BMS and the named individuals. Plaintiffs have sought leave to amend their complaints. In June 2025, an additional plaintiff filed a suit that is substantively identical to the proposed amended complaint. ENVIRONMENTAL PROCEEDINGS As previously reported, BMS is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including CERCLA, for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at BMS's current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties. CERCLA and Other Remediation Matters With respect to CERCLA and other remediation matters for which BMS is responsible under various state, federal and international laws, BMS typically estimates potential costs based on information obtained from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or counterpart state or foreign agency and/or studies prepared by independent consultants, including the total estimated costs for the site and the expected cost-sharing, if any, with other "potentially responsible parties," and BMS accrues liabilities when they are probable and reasonably estimable. BMS estimated its share of future costs for these sites to be $62 million as of June 30, 2025, which represents the sum of best estimates or, where no best estimate can reasonably be made, estimates of the minimal probable amount among a range of such costs (without taking into account any potential recoveries from other parties).

BMS and certain of its subsidiaries are involved in various lawsuits, claims, government investigations, and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. These claims or proceedings can involve various types of parties, including governments, competitors, customers, partners, suppliers, service providers, licensees, licensors, employees, or shareholders, among others. These matters may involve patent infringement, antitrust, securities, pricing, sales and marketing practices, environmental, commercial, contractual rights, licensing obligations, health and safety matters, consumer fraud, employment matters, product liability, and insurance coverage, among others. The resolution of these matters often develops over a long period of time and expectations can change as a result of new findings, rulings, appeals or settlement arrangements. Legal proceedings that are significant or that BMS believes could become significant or material are described below.

We are vigorously defending against the legal proceedings in which we are named as defendants and we believe we have substantial claims and/or defenses in each matter. While the outcomes of these proceedings and other contingencies BMS is subject to are inherently unpredictable and uncertain, we do not believe that any of these matters will have a material adverse effect on BMS’ financial position or liquidity, though they could possibly be material to our consolidated results of operations in any one accounting period. There can be no assurance that there will not be an increase in the scope of one or more of the matters described below or that any other or future lawsuits, claims, government investigations, or other legal proceedings will not be material to BMS’s financial position, results of operations, or cash flows for a particular period. Furthermore, failure to successfully enforce BMS’s patent rights would likely result in substantial decreases in the respective product revenues from generic competition.

Contingency accruals are recognized when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the related loss can be reasonably estimated. If BMS is unable to assess the outcome of a matter or estimate the possible loss or range of losses that could potentially result from such matter, a liability is not recorded. Developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause changes in the amounts previously accrued are evaluated each reporting period. For a discussion of BMS’s tax contingencies, see " — Note 7. Income Taxes."

BMS is involved in litigations throughout Europe against companies seeking to launch generic apixaban products prior to the expiration of the composition-of-matter patent for Eliquis and its associated SPCs. Litigations are pending or have been concluded in: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Denmark, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK.

In December 2024, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Cipla USA, Inc. (“Cipla”) notifying Celgene that Cipla had filed an ANDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic pomalidomide products in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against Cipla in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. No trial date has been scheduled.

In April 2025, Celgene received a Notice Letter from USV Private Limited (“USV”) notifying Celgene that USV had filed an ANDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic pomalidomide products in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against USV in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. No trial date has been scheduled.

In June 2025, Celgene received a Notice Letter from Deva Holding A/S (“Deva”) notifying Celgene that Deva had filed an ANDA containing paragraph IV certifications seeking approval to market generic pomalidomide products in the U.S. In response, Celgene initiated a patent infringement action against Deva in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, asserting certain FDA Orange Book-listed patents. No trial date has been scheduled.

In May and June 2024, BMS received Notice Letters from Synthon BV (“Synthon”) and Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”), respectively, each notifying BMS that it has filed an ANDA containing a paragraph IV certification seeking approval of a generic version of Zeposia in the U.S. and challenging a polymorph patent listed in the Orange Book for Zeposia but not the composition of matter patent. In response, BMS filed patent infringement actions against Synthon and Apotex in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In September 2024, the district court consolidated the Synthon and Apotex actions and trial is scheduled for February 2027.

BMS and certain Sanofi entities are defendants in a consumer protection action brought by the attorney general of Hawaii relating to the labeling, sales and/or promotion of Plavix*. In February 2021, a Hawaii state court judge issued a decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $834 million, with $417 million attributed to BMS. In March 2023, the Hawaii Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part the trial court decision, vacating the penalty award and remanding the case for a new trial and penalty determination. Following a new trial, in May 2024, the trial court issued a new decision against Sanofi and BMS, imposing penalties in the total amount of $916 million, with $458 million attributed to BMS. Sanofi and BMS appealed the decision. In May 2025, BMS and Sanofi executed a settlement agreement with the State of Hawaii to resolve the case for a total amount of $700 million, with $350 million attributable to and paid by BMS in the second quarter of 2025.

Beginning in March 2018, two putative class actions were filed against Celgene and certain of its officers and employees in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Celgene Securities Class Action”). The complaints alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws. The district court consolidated the two actions. In December 2019, the district court denied in part and granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. In November 2020, the district court certified a class of Celgene common stock purchasers between April 27, 2017 through April 28, 2018. Following discovery, defendants moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted in part and denied in part.

Certain entities filed individual actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey asserting largely the same allegations as the Celgene Securities Class Action. These actions have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. Defendants have moved for partial summary judgment in these consolidated actions.

In June 2021, an action was filed against BMS in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims of alleged breaches of a Contingent Value Rights Agreement (“CVR Agreement”) entered into in connection with the closing of BMS’s acquisition of Celgene in November 2019. An entity claiming to be the successor trustee under the CVR Agreement alleged that BMS breached the CVR Agreement by allegedly failing to use “diligent efforts” to obtain FDA approval of liso-cel (Breyanzi) before a contractual milestone date, thereby allegedly avoiding a $6.4 billion potential obligation to holders of the contingent value rights governed by the CVR Agreement and by allegedly failing to permit inspection of records in response to a request by the alleged successor trustee. The plaintiff sought damages in an amount to be determined at trial and other relief, including interest and attorneys’ fees. BMS disputes the allegations. BMS filed a motion to dismiss the alleged successor trustee’s complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, which was denied in June 2022. In February 2024, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. In September 2024, the court granted BMS’s motion and dismissed the lawsuit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice to the refiling of a new lawsuit by a properly appointed trustee. The plaintiff has appealed, and BMS has cross-appealed from the denial of its first motion to dismiss.

In November 2024, the same entity claiming to be successor trustee filed a new lawsuit against BMS making similar allegations to the previously dismissed case and attempting to remedy its jurisdictional deficiency. The plaintiff’s new complaint also names the current CVR Agreement Trustee and seeks a judgment that plaintiff is Trustee. In January 2025, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In February 2025, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. In March 2025, BMS filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.

Former Celgene stockholders have filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of Celgene stockholders who received CVRs in the BMS merger with Celgene for violations of the securities laws relating to the joint proxy statement. Those cases were consolidated into a single case. In March 2023, the Court granted BMS’s motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. Certain of the claims were dismissed with prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed with leave to file a further amended complaint, which plaintiffs filed in April 2023. In February 2024, the Court granted BMS’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety and dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal.

In November 2021, an alleged Celgene stockholder filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Union County, asserting claims on behalf of two separate putative classes, one of acquirers of CVRs and one of acquirers of BMS common stock, for violations of securities laws. In June 2024, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety without prejudice to file an amended complaint. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint which was dismissed with prejudice in February 2025. The plaintiff has appealed the dismissal.

On June 16, 2023, BMS filed a lawsuit against HHS and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, et al., challenging the constitutionality of the drug-pricing program in the IRA. That program requires pharmaceutical companies, like BMS, under the threat of significant penalties, to sell certain of their medicines at government-dictated prices. In April 2024, the court denied BMS’s motion for summary judgment and granted the government’s cross-motion for summary judgment. BMS appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On November 26, 2024, BMS filed a lawsuit against Carole Johnson, Administrator of Health Resources & Services Administration (“HRSA”) and Xavier Becerra, U.S. Secretary of HHS, challenging HRSA’s determination that BMS could not implement a cash rebate model for the 340B drug pricing program. BMS is seeking a determination that HRSA’s actions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution. In May 2025, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted HRSA summary judgment on BMS’s claims. BMS has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

Beginning in November 2014, putative class action lawsuits were filed against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws in connection with, among other things, activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Revlimid patents. In October 2020, the district court entered a final order approving a class settlement and dismissed the matter. Certain entities—including entities that opted out of the settlement class and others who claim that their suits are not covered by that settlement—have since filed additional suits against Celgene and BMS pursuing similar claims based on related theories, and a subset of plaintiffs brought additional claims related to copay assistance for Thalomid and Revlimid. Those new suits are principally being litigated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Court dismissed certain of those complaints with leave to amend in June 2024. All plaintiffs filed amended complaints in August 2024. BMS and Celgene have filed motions to dismiss those complaints, which are currently pending.

Beginning in September 2023, certain entities filed putative class actions against Celgene, BMS, and certain individuals in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York asserting claims under various antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws in connection with activities related to obtaining and litigating certain Pomalyst patents. In March 2025, the court dismissed the complaints against Celgene, BMS and the named individuals. Plaintiffs have sought leave to amend their complaints. In June 2025, an additional plaintiff filed a suit that is substantively identical to the proposed amended complaint.

As previously reported, BMS is a party to several environmental proceedings and other matters, and is responsible under various state, federal and foreign laws, including CERCLA, for certain costs of investigating and/or remediating contamination resulting from past industrial activity at BMS's current or former sites or at waste disposal or reprocessing facilities operated by third parties.