The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including government investigations, environmental matters, product liability matters, patent infringement claims, antitrust matters, securities class action lawsuits, personal injury claims, employment disputes, contractual and other commercial disputes, and other legal proceedings, all in the ordinary course of business, including those described below. Although it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes, unless otherwise indicated below, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of any particular matter, or matters that have the same legal or factual issues, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

U.S. Attorney's Office Subpoena W.D. Va. In March 2025, Endo USA, Inc. (“Endo USA”) received a subpoena duces tecum issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia (“WDVA USAO”) requesting documents and information from 1996 through the present related to any interactions by Endo USA, its affiliates, predecessors or other related parties with pharmacy benefit managers, including (i) remuneration provided, (ii) negotiation of rebates, (iii) communications regarding the prescription, administration or payment for opioid medications, and (iv) communications regarding the safety or efficacy of opioid medications. Endo USA received two additional subpoenas from the WDVA USAO seeking related material in April 2025. Endo

U.S. Department of Justice Consumer Protection Branch Subpoena. In April 2025, Endo USA received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Consumer Protection Branch seeking documents and information, if any, related to the marketing and promotion of Supprelin® LA from January 2020 through the present, for certain unapproved uses, including transgender care and gender dysphoria. Endo USA is cooperating with the investigation and is in the process of responding to the subpoenas. The Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of the investigation at this time.

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Investigative Demand. In October 2025, Endo received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the U.S. Department of Justice under the False Claims Act seeking documents and information from January 2020 through the present. The CID concerns allegations that (1) Endo violated the False Claims Act by paying kickbacks to induce the purchase of XIAFLEX, in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and (2) Endo inflated reimbursement rates for XIAFLEX by excluding applicable price concessions from average sales price reports submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Endo is cooperating with the investigation and is in the process of responding to the CID. The Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of this matter at this time.

Alta Fundamental. In September 2024, a lawsuit was filed against the Company’s CEO Sigurdur Olafsson, its former CFO Bryan Reasons, the former Chair of the Board Paul Bisaro, its former Chief Strategy and Restructuring Officer Jason Goodson, and its former Global Controller and Chief Investor Relations Officer Daniel Speciale (“Alta Individual Defendants”), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Alta Fundamental Advisors, LLC et al. v. Bisaro et al., No. 24-cv-09245. The Alta Fundamental lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements related to the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, including its financial strength, its ability to timely make certain payments related to the Company’s opioid-related litigation settlement and the risk of additional filings for bankruptcy protection. The lawsuit alleges claims under Sections 10(b), 18(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and the New Jersey Uniform Securities Act, as well as common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. The Company assumed the obligation to defend and indemnify the Alta Individual Defendants. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. In June 2025, the court granted in part and denied in part the Alta Individual Defendants' motion to dismiss. Certain of the Alta Individual Defendants filed a motion for reconsideration as to the court’s partial denial. In February 2026, the court granted the motion for reconsideration and the Individual Defendants Goodson and Speciale were dismissed from this case. The Alta Individual Defendants who did not file a motion for reconsideration answered the complaint in August 2025. In May 2026, the parties entered into an agreement to resolve all claims on this matter, with the settlement amount funded by the Company’s insurance carriers and not material to the Company’s financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Historically, Endo’s business had been operated by Endo International plc, together with its subsidiaries. On August 16, 2022, Endo International plc, together with certain of its direct and indirect subsidiaries, filed voluntary petitions for relief under the chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (“Bankruptcy Code,” and such cases, the “Endo Chapter 11 Cases”); certain additional Endo entities filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code on May 25, 2023 and May 31, 2023 (together the “Endo Debtors”). On December 19, 2023, the Endo Debtors filed a proposed chapter 11 plan of reorganization (as amended, including on January 5, 2024, January 9, 2024 and March 18, 2024, and including any exhibits and supplements filed with respect thereto, the “Endo Plan”) and related disclosure statement with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (“New York Bankruptcy Court”). The New York Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Endo Plan on March 19, 2024, and the Endo Debtors satisfied all conditions required for the Endo Plan effectiveness on April 23, 2024.

At the Endo Debtors’ request, the New York Bankruptcy Court appointed the Future Claimants' Representative (“FCR”) in the Endo Chapter 11 Cases. As further described in the applicable New York Bankruptcy Court filings, the FCR represents the rights of individuals who may in the future assert one or more personal injury claims against the Endo Debtors or a successor of the Endo Debtors’ businesses relating to the Endo Debtors’ opioid or transvaginal surgical mesh products, but who could not assert such claims in the Endo Chapter 11 Cases because, among other reasons, such individuals were unaware of the alleged injury, had a latent manifestation of the alleged injury or were otherwise unable to assert or incapable of asserting claims based on the alleged injury. Under the Endo Plan and the settlement contemplated thereby, the trust established for the benefit of eligible future claimants assumed liability for all future claims in exchange for Endo’s ongoing obligation to fund such trust. As of June 30, 2026, the Company’s accrual for loss contingencies is approximately $8.3 million. The liability was assumed in connection with the Business Combination, which is discussed further in Note 3 in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2025.

Under the Endo Plan, the U.S. Government Economic Settlement provides for payment by Endo of contingent consideration of $25.0 million per year for each calendar year between 2024 and 2028 (capped at $100.0 million in the aggregate) if Endo’s annual earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (“EBITDA”) for the corresponding calendar year exceeds defined baselines (the “EBITDA Outperformance Targets”), as set forth in the U.S. Government Economic Settlement. In accordance with the provisions of the U.S. Government Economic Settlement, in the event Endo acquires or sells assets, such EBITDA Outperformance

Targets, as adjusted to reflect the effects of the Business Combination in July 2025 and the Separation in November 2025 shall be adjusted upward or downward dollar for dollar in an amount equal to the EBITDA contribution of such acquired or sold assets. The EBITDA Outperformance Targets for 2024 and 2025 were not met and the Company does not expect to meet the EBITDA Outperformance Targets in any of the fiscal years 2026 through 2028. No payments have been made or accrued related to the achievement of certain EBITDA Outperformance Targets. Such contingent payments continue to apply after the closing of the Business Combination and the Separation.

The Company will continue to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to its products to prevent the marketing of infringing generic, biosimilar or competing products prior to the expiration of patents covering those products, which, if unsuccessful, could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of individual products and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In the case of litigation filed against potential generic, biosimilar or competing products to the Company's products, those litigation matters can either be settled or the litigation pursued through a trial and any potential appeals of the lower court decision.

Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited, et al. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC et al. On December 30, 2022, the Company initiated litigation against Airgas Therapeutics, LLC, Airgas USA LLC, and Air Liquide S.A. (collectively “Airgas”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following notice from Airgas of its Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) submission seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) for a generic version of INOmax® (nitric oxide) gas, for inhalation (“INOmax”). Airgas's ANDA received final approval from the FDA in July 2023, and according to Airgas' counsel, the original ANDA was filed in April 2011. In February 2024, the court entered stipulations of consent for filing of an amended complaint. In March 2024, the court granted Air Liquide S.A.’s motion to dismiss. Airgas Therapeutics, LLC and Airgas USA LLC remain parties to the litigation. In January 2025, the court denied the Company’s motion for preliminary injunction seeking to prevent defendants Airgas Therapeutics LLC and Airgas USA LLC from infringing the Company’s U.S. patents during the pendency of the litigation. The defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment. There was a jury trial in September 2025. At trial, the Company asserted three patents. The Company was seeking monetary and equitable relief. On September 12, 2025, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Company. The jury found that Airgas willfully infringed the asserted patents. The jury awarded approximately $9.5 million in monetary damages. On October 7, 2025, the court entered judgment that Airgas infringes the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. §271(e) and will enter final judgment on remedies after considering motions for judgment as a matter of law.

Amitiza Patent Challenges. The Company was granted numerous Japanese patents related to Amitiza. The Company has received notifications of petitions for invalidation trials described below, each of which was filed with the Japan Patent Office (“JPO”) and relates to Amitiza and its use in Japan. The JPO has the authority to determine the validity of each of these patent grants and each of these patent term extension (“PTE”) registration grants. A party may appeal the JPO’s determination to a court of law.

In October 2023, the Company received notification that Sawai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Sawai”) had filed petitions for two invalidation trials against two PTE registrations for JP Patent No. 4332353. In June 2025, the JPO determined that none of the invalidation grounds can stand and concluded that the two PTE registrations for the 24 and 12μg capsules are valid. Sawai has appealed the JPO decision for both PTE registrations. Oral arguments were held in February 2026. A decision was reached on April 9, 2026, dismissing Sawai’s complaints. Sawai did not appeal the decision.

In December 2023, the Company received notification that Sawai had filed a petition for an invalidation trial against JP Patent No. 4332353. The JPO held a hearing in December 2024 relating to Sawai’s challenge of JP Patent No. 4332353, and in May 2025 the JPO issued a decision finding that all of the asserted claims in respect of JP Patent No. 4332353 are valid and will be maintained. Sawai has appealed the JPO's decision to the IP High Court. Initial briefs were filed by all parties and an oral argument was held on April 23, 2026. On June 25, 2026, the Company received the judgment indicating that it prevailed on the appeal. Sawai has appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Japan. The appeal is at an early stage.

In April 2024, the Company received notification that Sawai had filed petitions for invalidation trials with respect to only the 12µg strength of Amitiza against PTE registrations of three additional patents (JP Patent No. 4786866, JP Patent No. 4852229, and JP Patent No. 4889219). The JPO held a hearing in August 2025 with respect to the three invalidations trials regarding the 12 µg PTE registrations. A decision was reached on May 26, 2026, dismissing Sawai’s complaints. Sawai has appealed the JPO decisions for all three PTE registrations. The appeals are at an early stage.

In April 2024, the Company received notification that Sawai had filed a petition for invalidation trial against JP Patent No. 4786866. In December 2025, the JPO issued a Notice of Completion of Examination in the invalidation trial. In February 2026, the JPO issued a decision finding that all of the asserted claims in respect of JP Patent No. 4786866 as amended during the invalidation trial are valid and will be maintained. The decision was not appealed by Sawai, and the deadline to appeal has passed.

In May 2024, the Company received notification that Sawai had filed petitions for invalidation trials with respect to only the 12µg strength of Amitiza against PTE registrations of two additional patents (JP Patent No. 4332316 and JP Patent No. 4684334). An oral hearing was held on March 2, 2026. A decision was reached on May 26, 2026, dismissing Sawai’s complaints. Sawai did not appeal the decision, and so the decision is final.

In December 2025, the Company received notification that Towa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd (“Towa”) had filed petitions for invalidation trials with respect to only the 12µg strength of Amitiza against PTE registrations for JP Patent Nos. 4786866, 4852229, and 4889219. The petitions have been received by the parties, and answers to the petitions have been filed. An oral hearing is expected to be scheduled later this year. The Company believes that each of these patents and/or PTE registrations is valid, and the Company will vigorously defend these patents and PTE registrations.

In October 2025, the Company intervened in a patent infringement suit filed by Viatris Pharmaceuticals Japan G.K. (“Viatris”) against Sawai, in Osaka District Court, Civil Division, related to certain Japanese patents. Viatris has filed lawsuits against Sawai alleging that Sawai has infringed JP Patent Nos. 4889219 (“the ‘219 patent”) and 4332353 (“the ‘353 patent”). In the lawsuit, Viatris alleges that Sawai has infringed the ‘219 and ‘353 patents by filing an application for marketing approval of a generic drug of Amitiza 24 mcg capsules. Petitions for preliminary injunction have also been filed against Sawai to enjoin it from continuing to infringe the ‘219 and ‘353 patents. The Company has intervened in both lawsuits to support Viatris in its claims against Sawai and to defend the validity of the ‘219 and ‘353 patents. In February 2026, the Osaka District Court ruled on the preliminary injunction cases in favor of Sawai, finding that Sawai does not infringe the ‘219 patent or the ‘353 patent. The Osaka District Court did not rule on the validity of either the ‘219 patent or the ‘353 patent. Viatris appealed the decision, and the Company joined the appeal, but the appeal was later withdrawn. A decision in the patent infringement lawsuits was received on March 3, 2026, finding that Sawai does not infringe the ‘219 patent or the ‘353 patent. Viatris has appealed the decision, and the Company has joined the appeal. Towa also joined the appeal in support of Sawai. On February 16, 2026, the Japanese regulatory authority approved both Towa’s and Sawai’s generic 24 mcg Amitiza products; however, the generic Amitiza products were not included in the National Health Insurance (“NHI”) price listing for generic drugs published in June, and so the generic Amitiza products are not available on the market. The next NHI price listing will occur in December.

Separately, Viatris filed a number of additional proceedings alleging patent infringement against Towa and Sawai in Japan, including petitions to enjoin them from continuing to infringe a number of patents related to the Amitiza 24 mcg capsules. The Company has intervened in the lawsuits to support Viatris in its claims and to defend the validity of the patents. The petitions to enjoin Sawai and Towa from continuing to infringe a number of patents related to the Amitiza 24 mcg capsules have been withdrawn, but the patent infringement cases remain pending.

Pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Separation Agreement by and between the Company and Par Health, at the effective time of its separation from the Company, Par Health or one of its subsidiaries assumed certain liabilities (whether accrued, contingent or otherwise) relating to, arising out of or resulting from the generic pharmaceuticals (including active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API’s”)) and sterile injectables businesses of the Company or certain related assets, including all related pending, threatened and unasserted legal matters (collectively, the “SpinCo Liabilities”). These SpinCo Liabilities include, among others, environmental proceedings, governmental investigations, patent proceedings, commercial disputes, and other litigation. The Company or one of its subsidiaries retained all liabilities (including whether accrued, contingent or otherwise) other than SpinCo Liabilities, including all related pending, threatened and unasserted legal matters (the “Parent Liabilities”). Par Health agreed to indemnify the Company for any liability arising out of or resulting from the SpinCo Liabilities, and the Company agreed to indemnify Par Health for any liability arising out of or resulting from the Parent Liabilities. Items described above are considered to be Parent Liabilities.

U.S. Attorney's Office Subpoena W.D. Va. In August 2023, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the WDVA USAO. Subsequently, the Company and Par Health received additional grand jury subpoenas from the WDVA USAO, most recently, in December 2025. The subpoenas seek production of certain data and information for the time period from July 17, 2012, to the present, including information and data relating to the controlled substances compliance program of the Company’s former subsidiaries, reporting of suspicious orders for controlled substances, chargebacks and other transactions, financial accounts related to these issues, financial transactions involving prescription drug products, and communications with the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. The Company cannot predict the eventual scope, duration or outcome of this matter at this time.

Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Multi-District Litigation. In August 2016, a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) was established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“EDPA”) relating to allegations of antitrust violations with respect to generic pharmaceutical pricing (“Generic Pricing MDL”). Plaintiffs in the Generic Pricing MDL, captioned In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, allege a conspiracy of price-fixing and customer allocation among generic drug