Teva Pharmaceutical (TEVA) Risk Factors

We are required to comply with competition laws in the territories where we do business around the world. Compliance with these laws has been the subject of increasing focus and activity by regulatory authorities, both in the United States and Europe, in recent years. Alleged actions by our employees, in violation of such laws, or evolving interpretations of competition law as applicable to certain practices, have exposed us, and may further expose us, to investigations and legal proceedings, which may result in significant liability for violations of competition laws, which may have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations. We have been and may in the future be subject to investigations, claims and proceedings relating to price fixing and violations of related laws and regulations, such as the Sherman Act. In August 2023, we reached a deferred prosecution agreement with the DOJ to settle certain price-fixing charges brought against us in 2020. In addition, we are a party to numerous civil claims brought by state officials and private plaintiffs alleging that Teva, together with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic products in the United States. For further information, see "Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing" in note 12b to our consolidated financial statements. If any investigations, claims or proceedings are adversely determined against us, we may face material adverse effects on our business, including monetary penalties, debarment from federally funded health care programs and reputational harm. We have been involved in numerous litigations involving challenges to the validity or enforceability of listed patents (including our own), and therefore settling patent litigations has been and will likely continue to be an important part of our business. There is continued scrutiny of our patent settlements, including from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the European Commission. Accordingly, we may receive formal or informal requests from competition law authorities around the world for information about a particular settlement agreement, and there is a risk that governmental authorities, customers, other downstream purchasers or others may commence actions against us alleging violations of antitrust laws based on our settlement agreements. We are currently defendants in antitrust actions brought by U.S. states, the European Commission and private plaintiffs involving numerous settlement agreements and, since 2015, we are subject to a consent decree with the FTC, which imposes on us certain injunctive reliefs with respect to our ability to enter into patent settlements in the United States. The U.S. Congress and certain state legislatures in the United States have also passed, or proposed passing, legislation that could adversely impact our ability to settle patent litigations. For example, the State of California has enacted legislation that prohibits, with certain exceptions and safe harbors, various types of patent litigation settlements, and imposes substantial monetary penalties on companies and individuals who do not comply. The enforcement of this law has been preliminarily enjoined as likely violating the U.S. Constitution, but such legislation still creates a risk of significant potential exposure for settling patent litigations and, in turn, makes it more difficult to settle in the first place, which could have a material adverse effect on our business. Following calls in recent years from policy makers and other stakeholders in many countries for governmental intervention to address the high prices of certain pharmaceutical products, we are currently, and may in the future be, subject to governmental investigations, claims or other legal or regulatory actions regarding our pricing and/or other alleged exclusionary practices. These include U.S. Congressional investigations regarding both our innovative medicines and generic medicines, the European Commission's inquiry into COPAXONE, and litigation concerning the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority's inquiry regarding hydrocortisone. For example, in September 2020, the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform held a hearing focused on pricing of branded medications, which focused in part on historic pricing of COPAXONE in the U.S., and subsequently issued a report with respect to COPAXONE's pricing. Additionally, on October 10, 2022, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections, which sets forth its preliminary allegations that Teva had engaged in anti-competitive practices relating to COPAXONE. In November 2023, the FTC notified Teva and other pharmaceutical companies as well as the FDA, under 21 CFR 314.53, that in the FTC's view, certain of our and other pharmaceutical companies' patents have been improperly listed in the Orange Book, resulting in potential delays to generic competition, and subsequently, certain members of the U.S. congress reiterated the concerns of the FTC. Any such investigation may have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, financial condition and results of operations. For further information, see "Competition Matters" and "Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing" in note 12b to our consolidated financial statements.

In the ordinary course of our business, we are exposed to lawsuits, claims, proceedings and government investigations that could preclude or delay the commercialization of our products or disrupt our business operations. We are currently subject to several governmental and civil proceedings and litigations relating to our pricing and marketing practices, intellectual property, product liability, competition matters, opioids, securities disclosure, financial reporting and accounting practices, corporate governance and environmental matters. These investigations and litigations are costly and involve a significant diversion of management attention. Such proceedings are unpredictable and may develop over lengthy periods of time. An adverse resolution of these proceedings may result in large monetary fines, damages, additional litigation, such as securities and derivative actions, and other non-monetary sanctions and remedies, such as mandated compliance agreements, all of which can be expensive and disruptive to our operations and business, and can impact decisions related to our product offerings and portfolio. Due to increasing numbers of securities claims over the last several years and related payouts under insurance policies, in addition to increased settlement values in "event-driven" litigation and a growing number of plaintiff shareholder law firms eager to bring claims, premiums and deductibles for insurance, including D&O insurance, have been increasing and some insurers are reducing the number of companies they insure, causing the supply of insurance to lag behind demand. This could increase our premiums, reduce the scope and capacity of our coverage, and adversely affect our ability to maintain and renew our existing insurance policies on favorable terms or at all. While we continue to maintain insurance coverage intended to address certain risks, such coverage may be insufficient to cover claims and losses we face.

We are subject to tax in many jurisdictions, and significant judgment is required in determining our provision for income taxes. Likewise, we are subject to audit by tax authorities in many jurisdictions. In such audits, our interpretation of tax legislation may be challenged and tax authorities in various jurisdictions may disagree with, and subsequently challenge, the amount of profits taxed in such jurisdictions under our inter-company agreements. Although we believe our estimates are reasonable, the ultimate outcome of such audits and related litigation could be different from our provision for taxes and may have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements and cash flows. For additional information see note 13 to our consolidated financial statements. The base erosion and profit shifting ("BEPS") project undertaken by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD") may have adverse consequences to our tax liabilities. The BEPS project contemplates changes to numerous international tax principles, as well as national tax incentives, and these changes, when adopted by individual countries, could adversely affect our provision for income taxes. The first wave of BEPS recommendations has been implemented by countries in specific national tax laws, and the OECD is currently working on further initiatives that may further change current international tax principles. On December 12, 2022, the EU Council announced that EU member states had reached an agreement to implement at EU level the minimum taxation component of 15% ("Pillar Two") of the OECD's reform of international taxation, commencing in 2024. We are currently monitoring the new rules and awaiting further guidance and country agreements, however, we do not expect the adoption of this guidance to have a material impact on the Company's consolidated financial statements in the foreseeable future.

We are subject to laws and regulations concerning the environment, safety matters, regulation of chemicals and product safety in the countries where we manufacture and sell our products or otherwise operate our business. These requirements include regulation of the handling, manufacture, transportation, storage, use and disposal of materials, including the discharge of pollutants and pharmaceutical residues into the environment. If we fail to comply with these laws and regulations, we may be subject to enforcement proceedings including fines and penalties. In the normal course of our business, we are also exposed to risks relating to possible releases of hazardous substances into the environment, which could cause environmental or property damage or personal injuries, and which could require remediation of contaminated soil and groundwater. Under certain laws, we may be required to remediate contamination at certain properties, regardless of whether the contamination was caused by us or by previous occupants or users of the property. Climate change, and evolving laws, regulations and policies regarding climate change, could also pose additional legal or regulatory requirements related to greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and climate risk reporting, carbon pricing, and mandatory reduction targets. These more stringent requirements could increase our costs of sourcing, production, and transportation, as well as have negative reputational impacts if we fail to meet such requirements. While we have validated Science-Based Targets for GHG reductions, failure to respond to risks regarding climate change may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation. The consequences of climate change, such as extreme weather and water scarcity, could pose risks to our facilities and disruption of our activities. Natural disasters and extreme weather events resulting from climate change, such as floods, heatwaves, blizzards, hurricanes, wildfires, the rise of sea level, and water stress, could impact our business activities and our ability to deliver our products to customers. We evaluate these risks in our supply planning, loss prevention and business continuity planning. The implementation of an Environmental, Health and Safety Management System across our facilities has resulted in the development of processes to prepare and respond to a range of natural emergencies that may occur, including extreme weather events. We have been placing increased attention on water management, implementing a scarcity-focused approach to water conservation to align with community needs and advance toward sustainable operations. If our planning and risk management regarding natural disasters and extreme weather events fail, our facilities could be impacted and our activities could be significantly disrupted.

Although we believe we have one of the most extensive pipelines of generic products in the industry, in recent years we were unable to successfully execute a number of generic launches and these challenges may continue in the foreseeable future. As a result of delays we have experienced in the timing of launches, we may not be able to realize the economic benefits anticipated in connection with our planned launch timing. If we cannot execute timely launches of new products, we may not be able to offset the increasing price erosion on existing products in the United States resulting from pricing pressures and accelerated generics approvals for competing products. Such unsuccessful launches can be caused by many factors, including, delays in regulatory approvals, lack of operational or clinical readiness or patent litigation. Failure or delays to execute launches of new generic products could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to introduce new products depends in large part upon the success of our challenges to patent rights held by third parties or our ability to develop non-infringing products. Based upon a variety of legal and commercial factors, we may elect to sell a product even though patent litigation is still pending, either before any court decision is rendered or while an appeal of a lower court decision is pending. The outcome of such patent litigation could, in certain cases, materially adversely affect our business. For further information, see "Intellectual Property Litigation" in note 12b to our consolidated financial statements. If we sell products prior to a final court decision, and such decision is adverse to us, we could be required to cease selling the infringing products, causing us to lose future sales revenue from such products and we could face substantial liabilities for patent infringement, in the form of either payment for the innovator's lost profits or a royalty on our sales of the infringing products. These damages may be significant and could materially adversely affect our business. In the United States, in the event of a finding of willful infringement, the damages assessed may be up to three times the profits lost by the patent owner. Because of the discount pricing typically involved with generic pharmaceutical products, patented brand products generally realize a significantly higher profit margin than generic pharmaceutical products. As a result, the damages assessed may be significantly higher than our profits. In addition, even if we do not suffer damages, we may incur significant legal and related expenses in the course of successfully defending against infringement claims.

Our generic drugs face intense competition. Prices of generic drugs may, and often do, decline, sometimes dramatically, especially as additional generic pharmaceutical companies receive approvals and enter the market for a given product and competition intensifies. Consequently, our ability to sustain our sales and profitability on any given product over time is affected by the number of companies selling such product, including new market entrants, and the timing of their approvals. The goals established under the Generic Drug User Fee Act, and increased funding of the FDA's Office of Generic Drugs, have led to more and faster generic approvals, and consequently increased competition for some of our products. The FDA has stated that it has established new steps to enhance competition, promote access and lower drug prices and is approving increasing numbers of generic applications. While these FDA improvements are expected to benefit our generic product pipeline, they will also benefit competitors that seek to launch products in established generic markets where we currently offer products. In recent years, there has also been an increase in the number of generic manufacturers targeting significant new generic opportunities with exclusivity under the Hatch-Waxman Act, or which are complex to develop. Many of the smaller generic manufacturers have increased their capabilities, level of sophistication and development resources in recent years. The FDA has also been limiting the availability of exclusivity periods for new products, which reduces the economic benefit from being first-to-file for generic approvals. For example, the 180-day market exclusivity period under the Hatch-Waxman Act for a new product can be forfeited by failure to obtain approval or to launch a product within a specified time or if certain conditions exist, some of which may be outside our control. The failure to maintain our industry-leading performance in the United States on first-to-file opportunities and to develop and commercialize high complexity generic products could adversely affect our sales and profitability. Furthermore, brand pharmaceutical companies continue to manage products in a challenging environment through marketing agreements with payers, pharmacy benefits managers and generic manufacturers. For example, brand companies often sell or license their own generic versions of their products, known as "authorized generics," either directly or through other generic pharmaceutical companies. No significant regulatory approvals are required for authorized generics, and brand companies do not face any other significant barriers to entry into such market. Brand companies may seek to delay introductions of generic equivalents through a variety of commercial and regulatory tactics. Many pharmaceutical companies increasingly have used state and federal legislative and regulatory means to delay generic (including biosimilar) competition. These efforts have included pursuing new patents for existing products to extend patent protection; obtaining new regulatory exclusivities; selling the brand product as their own authorized generics; using the Citizen Petition process to request amendments to FDA standards or otherwise delay generic (or biosimilar) drug approvals; seeking changes to U.S. Pharmacopeia, an organization which publishes industry recognized compendia of drug standards; using the legislative and regulatory process to have drugs reclassified or rescheduled; attaching patent extension amendments to unrelated federal legislation; and entering into agreements with pharmacy benefit management companies to block the dispensing of generic (including biosimilar) products. These actions may increase the costs and risks of our efforts to introduce generic products and may delay or prevent such introduction altogether. In addition, the U.S. Congress and various state legislatures in the United States have passed, or have proposed passing, legislation that could have an adverse impact on pharmaceutical manufacturers' ability to (i) settle litigation initiated pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act and Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act ("BPCIA"); (ii) secure the full benefit of first-to-file regulatory approval status secured under the Hatch-Waxman Act; and (iii) recover their investments into the development of an innovative, generic or biosimilar product. Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA create various pathways for generic drug manufacturers to secure accelerated approvals of their abbreviated new drug applications and abbreviated biologics license applications. The new laws and proposals from the federal and state governments could serve to change, directly and indirectly, the Hatch-Waxman Act and BPCIA, including the incentives to develop generic and biosimilar products, as well as the ability of generic manufacturers to accelerate the launch of their new generic and biosimilar products. They also could impact the ability of brand manufacturers to protect their investments in the intellectual property associated with their branded specialty and innovative biologic products. Additionally, the enactment of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 (the "IRA") represents the most significant pharmaceutical pricing reform in the United States to date and includes legislative changes that could lead to greater pricing pressures on our products such as amendments to (i) eliminate the "donut hole" under the Medicare Part D program beginning in 2025; (ii) modify the "noninterference" provisions of the Medicare Part D enabling statute to require the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") to negotiate the prices of a subset of drugs and biologics with the highest annual expenditures under Medicare Parts B and D; and (iii) impose manufacturer rebates on certain single-source Part B and Part D drugs when prices rise faster that the rate of inflation. A number of state legislatures have also begun considering legislation that would implement IRA-like frameworks for state regulated insurance markets. We continue to monitor these legislative developments and evaluate whether any changes to our business practices and operations are necessary in order to comply with such legislative reforms and advocate for policies that support both innovation and access to high quality medicines for patients. However, we cannot accurately predict the ultimate impact of such legislative developments on our business or whether additional changes in regulatory policies will occur in the future.

Sales of our generics medicines have historically represented and are expected to continue to represent a significant portion of our business. In 2023, total revenues from sales of our generic medicines in all our business segments were $8,734 million, or 55% of our total revenues. As part of our Pivot to Growth strategy, we intend to focus on a prioritized portfolio and pipeline of high-value generics opportunities. However, generic pharmaceuticals are, as a general matter, less profitable than innovative medicines, and have faced price erosion in each of our business segments, placing even greater importance on our ability to continually introduce new products. Although we intend to invest in the development of more complex, high-value generics products such as drug device combinations and long-acting injectables, there is no assurance as to when we will be successful in achieving our expected results, if at all. We also expect to continue to experience significant adverse challenges in the U.S. generics market deriving from limitations on our ability to influence generic medicine pricing in the long term and a decrease in value from future launches and growth. These and other challenges have required us to recognize significant goodwill impairments in past years. If we experience further difficulty in this market, this may continue to adversely affect our revenues and profits from our North America business segment or cause us to recognize one or more goodwill impairments relating to this reporting unit.