Bristol-Myers Squibb  PRICING, SALES AND PROMOTIONAL PRACTICES LITIGATION AND INVESTIGATIONS  Abilify  Federal Subpoena  Abilify  State Attorneys General Investigation  Abilify  Co-Pay Assistance Litigation  AWP Litigation  PRODUCT LIABILITY LITIGATION  Qui Tam Litigation  Plavix  In March 2011, the Company was served with an unsealed qui tam complaint filed by three former sales representatives in California  Superior Court, County of Los Angeles. The California Department of Insurance has elected to intervene in the lawsuit. The complaint  alleges the Company paid kickbacks to California providers and pharmacies in violation of California Insurance Frauds Prevention  Act, Cal. Ins. Code § 1871.7. Discovery is ongoing. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this lawsuit or  its impact on the Company.  The Company is a party to various product liability lawsuits. As previously disclosed, in addition to lawsuits, the Company also faces  unfiled claims involving its products. As previously disclosed, the Company and certain affiliates of Sanofi are defendants in a number of individual lawsuits in various  state and federal courts claiming personal injury damage allegedly sustained after using  Plavix . Currently, more than 2,000 claims are  filed in state and federal courts in various states including California, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York. The defendants terminated  the previously disclosed tolling agreement effective as of September 1, 2012. In February 2013, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict  Litigation granted the Company and Sanofi’s motion to establish a multidistrict litigation to coordinate federal pretrial proceedings in  Plavix  product liability and related cases. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of these lawsuits or the  potential impact on the Company.  68 As previously disclosed, the Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, has been a defendant in a  number of private class actions as well as suits brought by the attorneys general of various states. In these actions, plaintiffs allege that  defendants caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs,  entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company remains a defendant in two state attorneys  general suits pending in state courts around the country having settled the lawsuits brought by the Mississippi and Louisiana Attorneys  General. Beginning in August 2010, the Company was the defendant in a trial in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania  (Commonwealth Court), brought by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. In September 2010, the jury issued a verdict for the  Company, finding that the Company was not liable for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation; however, the Commonwealth Court  judge issued a decision on a Pennsylvania consumer protection claim that did not go to the jury, finding the Company liable for $28  million and enjoining the Company from contributing to the provision of inflated AWPs. The Company has moved to vacate the  decision and the Commonwealth has moved for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the Commonwealth Court denied. The  Company has appealed the decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.  In March 2012, the Company and its partner Otsuka were named as co-defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed by union  health and welfare funds in the SDNY. Plaintiffs are challenging the legality of the  Abilify co-pay assistance program under the  Federal Antitrust and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations laws, and seeking damages. The Company and Otsuka  have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this litigation or its  potential impact on the Company.  In March 2009, the Company received a letter from the Delaware Attorney General’s Office advising of a multi-state coalition  investigating whether certain  Abilify  marketing practices violated those respective states’ consumer protection statutes. It is not  possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this investigation or its potential impact on the Company.  In January 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York  requesting information related to, among other things, the sales and marketing of  Abilify . It is not possible at this time to assess the  outcome of this matter or its potential impact on the Company.