Humana Litigations Thalomid  and  Revlimid  Antitrust Class Action Litigation and Related Proceedings In May 2018, Humana, Inc. (“Humana”) filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the Pike County Circuit Court of the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Humana’s complaint alleges Celgene engaged in unlawful off-label marketing in connection with sales of  Thalomid  and  Revlimid  and asserts claims against Celgene for fraud, breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment and violations of New Jersey’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The complaint seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. In April 2019, Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s complaint, which the Court denied in January 2020. No trial date has been scheduled. In May 2020, Celgene filed suit against Humana Pharmacy, Inc. (“HPI”), a Humana subsidiary, in Delaware Superior Court. Celgene’s complaint alleges that HPI breached its contractual obligations to Celgene by assigning claims to Humana that Humana is now asserting. The complaint seeks damages for HPI’s breach as well as a declaratory judgment. In September 2020, HPI filed a motion to dismiss Celgene’s complaint. In March 2019, Humana filed a separate lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Humana’s complaint alleges that Celgene violated various antitrust, consumer protection, and unfair competition laws to delay or prevent generic competition for  Thalomid  and Revlimid  brand drugs, including (a) allegedly refusing to sell samples of products to generic manufacturers for purposes of bioequivalence testing intended to be included in aNDAs for approval to market generic versions of these products; (b) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits, procuring invalid patents, and/or entering into anticompetitive patent settlements; (c) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of Humana and its subsidiaries in several capacities, including as a direct purchaser and as an indirect purchaser, and seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. Celgene filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s complaint, and the Court has stayed discovery pending adjudication of that motion. No trial date has been scheduled. Beginning in November 2014, certain 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 by (a) allegedly securing an exclusive supply contract for the alleged purpose of preventing a generic manufacturer from securing its own supply of thalidomide active pharmaceutical ingredient, (b) allegedly refusing to sell samples of  Thalomid and  Revlimid brand drugs to various generic manufacturers for the alleged purpose of bioequivalence testing necessary for aNDAs to be submitted to the FDA for approval to market generic versions of these products, (c) allegedly bringing unjustified patent infringement lawsuits in order to allegedly delay approval for proposed generic versions of  Thalomid  and  Revlimid , and/or (d) allegedly entering into settlements of patent infringement lawsuits with certain generic manufacturers that allegedly have had anticompetitive effects. The plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and putative classes of third-party payers, are seeking injunctive relief and damages. The various lawsuits were consolidated into a master action for all purposes. In October 2017, the plaintiffs filed a motion for certification of two damages classes under the laws of thirteen states and the District of Columbia and a nationwide injunction class. Celgene filed an opposition to the plaintiffs’ motion and a motion for judgment on the pleadings dismissing all state law claims where the plaintiffs no longer seek to represent a class. In October 2018, the Court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Celgene’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. In December 2018, the plaintiffs filed a new motion for class certification, which Celgene opposed. In July 2019, the parties reached a settlement under which all the putative class plaintiff claims would be dismissed with prejudice. In December 2019, after certain third-party payors who were members of the settlement class refused to release their potential claims and participate in the settlement, Celgene exercised its right to terminate the settlement agreement. In March 2020, Celgene reached a revised settlement with the class plaintiffs. In May 2020, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. In October 2020, the Court entered a final order approving the settlement and dismissed the matter. That settlement does not resolve the claims of certain entities that opted out of the first settlement. In March 2020, United HealthCare Services, Inc. (“UHS”), affiliates of which opted out of the first settlement in the  Thalomid  and  Revlimid  Antitrust Class Action Litigation, filed a lawsuit against Celgene in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. UHS’s complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as the class action litigation in addition to certain claims regarding donations directed to copay assistance. The complaint purports to assert claims on behalf of UHS and its subsidiaries in several capacities, including as a direct purchaser and as an indirect purchaser, and seeks, among other things, treble and punitive damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. In December 2020, Celgene’s motion to transfer the action to the District of New Jersey was granted and the case is now pending in that Court. In July 2020, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association (“BCBSA”) sued Celgene and BMS on behalf of the Federal Employee Program in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. BCBSA’s complaint makes largely the same claims and allegations as the class action litigation. A motion to transfer this matter to the District of New Jersey is pending. 118