LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2026
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Bausch + Lomb is involved, and, from time to time, may become involved, in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include or may include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, tax, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, Bausch + Lomb also initiates or may initiate actions or file counterclaims. Bausch + Lomb could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. Bausch + Lomb believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect Bausch + Lomb, its reputation and its assets. On a quarterly basis, Bausch + Lomb evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of March 31, 2026, Bausch + Lomb’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets includes accrued current loss contingencies of $12 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, unless otherwise indicated, Bausch + Lomb cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on Bausch + Lomb’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market price or value of its common shares and/or debt securities to decline. Antitrust Generic Pricing Antitrust Litigation BHC and its subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“Bausch Health US”), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“Bausch Health Americas”) (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively, the “Company”), are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation (“MDL”) entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16 MD-2724). Bausch + Lomb Corporation had been named as a defendant in the MDL in one complaint, but this complaint has been amended to remove Bausch + Lomb Corporation and, as a result, Bausch + Lomb Corporation is no longer a party to the MDL. The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits, which are brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, hospitals, pharmacies, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, are consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which are consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. State of Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., (D. CT, C.A. No. 3:20-00802), in which Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas are defendants, has been remanded to and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas have reached an agreement in principle to settle the Connecticut case, which remains subject to final court approval. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and New York State Supreme Court against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation. The Company disputes the claims against it and these cases will be defended vigorously. Additionally, BHC and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively the “Company”) were named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20). The plaintiff sought to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under federal law. The proposed class action contained similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February, 20, 2026, the Canadian court declined to certify the action and dismissed the action against the Company. The deadline for the filing of an appeal has passed with no appeal filed. These lawsuits cover products of both Bausch + Lomb and BHC’s other businesses. It is anticipated that Bausch + Lomb and BHC will split the fees and expenses associated with defending these claims, as well as any potential damages or other liabilities awarded in or otherwise arising from these claims, in the manner set forth in the MSA. Product Liability Shower to Shower® Products Liability Litigation Since 2016, BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, have been named in a number of product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower® body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, twenty-three (23) of such product liability suits currently remain pending. In three (3) cases pending in the Atlantic County, New Jersey Multi-County Litigation, agreed stipulations of dismissal have been entered by the Court, thus dismissing the Company from those cases. One (1) case was also recently dismissed with prejudice in its entirety for failure of plaintiff to comply with court orders requiring plaintiff fact sheets. Two (2) cases in the federal Multidistrict Litigation were dismissed recently for failure to comply with orders requiring Plaintiff Profile Forms. Potential liability (including its attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. Twenty-two (22) of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that the use of Shower to Shower® caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or breast cancer. The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or punitive damages. The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, two proposed class actions were filed in Canada against BHC and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower®. The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec). The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. On November 17, 2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to certify a class as to BHC or Shower to Shower®, and at this time no appeal of that judgment has been filed. On December 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the British Columbia class action filed a Second Amended Notice of Civil Claim and Application for Certification, removing BHC as a defendant; as a result, the British Columbia class action is concluded as to BHC. In October 2021, Johnson & Johnson, through one or more subsidiaries purported to complete a Texas divisional merger with respect to any talc liabilities at Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (“JJCI”). LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”), the resulting entity of the divisional merger, assumed JJCI’s talc liabilities and thereafter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which in November 2021 was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (the “New Jersey Bankruptcy Court”). The first bankruptcy case was dismissed on April 4, 2023, after a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and LTL re-filed a new Chapter 11 case on the same day. Several motions to dismiss were again filed, and on August 11, 2023, the second Chapter 11 case was dismissed. LTL and certain supporting creditors and tort claimants appealed, and on July 25, 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal order, and LTL’s second bankruptcy case was closed. During the pendency of LTL’s bankruptcy cases, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court extended a preliminary injunction that had stayed substantially all cases subject to the indemnification agreement related to Johnson & Johnson’s talc liability, which injunction was terminated in connection with the bankruptcy case dismissal. In December 2023, LTL changed its name to LLT Management LLC (“LLT”). In June and July 2024, LLT solicited votes for a new “pre-packaged” Chapter 11 plan, and after the reported successful solicitation of votes to commence the planned bankruptcy, LLT and certain affiliates underwent another corporate restructuring that resulted in two entities, Red River Talc LLC (“Red River”) and Pecos River Talc LLC (“Pecos River”), assuming the talc liabilities of LLT. On September 20, 2024, Red River filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Texas Bankruptcy Court”), seeking to resolve all ovarian cancer-related talc claims. On October 21, 2024, the Texas Bankruptcy Court agreed to enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying all ovarian cancer-related talc claims at least through December 2024, which it has since extended through March 15, 2025. On December 9, 2024, Red River filed a Second Amended Chapter 11 plan incorporating the settlement with the Talc Claimants’ Committee. A hearing on confirmation of the plan and any objections thereto began on February 18, 2025. Johnson & Johnson has reported that the entity Pecos River will be responsible for resolving all non-ovarian cancer-related talc claims outside of bankruptcy. After the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, on March 31, 2025, the Texas Bankruptcy Court issued a memorandum decision denying confirmation of the plan, ordering the dismissal of Red River’s bankruptcy case and vacating the preliminary injunction. The debtor’s time to appeal has expired. Certain claimants filed motions to reconsider the dismissal of the bankruptcy case. Those motions were denied and the time to appeal has expired. Red River, Pecos River and Johnson & Johnson continue to have indemnification obligations running to BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, for Shower to Shower® related product liability litigation. It is our expectation that Johnson & Johnson, in accordance with the applicable indemnification agreement, will continue to vigorously defend BHC and Bausch + Lomb in each of the remaining actions, and that BHC and Bausch + Lomb will not incur any material losses with respect to indemnification claims as a result of the divisional merger or the bankruptcy. General Civil Actions Doctors Allergy Formula Lawsuit In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against Bausch Health Americas in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting breach of contract and related claims under a 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement, which purports to include milestone payments that Doctors Allergy alleges should have been paid by Bausch Health Americas. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. Bausch Health Americas has asserted counterclaims against Doctors Allergy. Bausch Health Americas filed a motion seeking an order granting Bausch Health Americas’ motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims against Doctors Allergy and dismissing Doctors Allergy’s claims against Bausch Health Americas. The motion was fully briefed as of May 2021.The Court held a hearing on the motion on January 25, 2022. On May 12, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying the motion. On June 14, 2023, Bausch Health Americas filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Decision and Order. On March 13, 2024, Bausch Health Americas filed its appellate brief with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department, appealing the trial court’s denial of Bausch Health America’s motion for summary judgment. Doctors Allergy filed its answering brief on July 26, 2024, and Bausch Health Americas filed its reply brief on September 13, 2024. The Appellate Division heard oral argument on November 7, 2024. On December 5, 2024, the Appellate Division denied Bausch Health Americas’ appeal as to Doctors Allergy’s second cause of action (breach of contract) and Bausch Health Americas’ counterclaims, but it granted the appeal as to Doctors Allergy’s third cause of action (breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing) and dismissed that claim. On December 13, 2024, the Appellate Division remitted this action back to the trial court. Trial is ongoing, with jury selection having begun on April 20, 2026, and trial scheduled to continue until May 8, 2026. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously. Intellectual Property Matters On August 16, 2021, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B&L Inc.”) received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Slayback Pharma LLC (“Slayback”), in which Slayback asserted that certain U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops (the “Lumify Patents”), are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Slayback’s generic drops, for which an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) has been filed by Slayback. B&L Inc., through its affiliate Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, exclusively licenses the Lumify Patents from Eye Therapies, LLC (“Eye Therapies”). On September 10, 2021, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Slayback pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Slayback of one or more claims of the Lumify Patents (the “Slayback Lawsuit”), thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Slayback ANDA. Since then, U.S. Patent No. 9,259,425 has been dismissed from the case. On May 15, 2023, the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) issued a Final Written Decision, finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,293,742 unpatentable (IPR2022-00142). This decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). The Federal Circuit issued its opinion on June 30, 2025, which reversed the PTAB’s claim construction of certain limitation, vacated its obviousness finding, and remanded for further proceedings. Furthermore, two additional patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245) have issued and been listed in the Orange Book as related to Lumify®. Lawsuits alleging infringement of these patents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Slayback and its licensees, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “DRL”) (the “DRL Lawsuits”). The Slayback Lawsuit and DRL Lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one district court action before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (3:21-cv-16766-RK-RLS). On December 15, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction requesting the court to enjoin any infringing activities by DRL and a hearing was held in January 2024. On May 10, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, finding that Plaintiffs had not proven that they would be “irreparably harmed” absent a preliminary injunction. Additionally, on December 18, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies amended its complaint in the consolidated district court action to add claims for copyright infringement, as well as claims under the Lanham Act, including trademark and trade dress infringement. DRL subsequently petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245 and the PTAB instituted both petitions (IPR2024-00467 and IPR2024-00563). Oral argument was held before the PTAB on May 13, 2025. On July 9, 2025, settlement was reached with DRL and B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, Eye Therapies and DRL entered into a settlement agreement effective as of July 9, 2025, providing for, among other things, a market entry date of June 30, 2027 (or earlier subject to certain acceleration clauses) for DRL’s generic drops. On July 14, 2025, the consolidated district court action (3:21-cv-16766-RK-RLS) was dismissed without prejudice and on July 22, 2025, the PTAB terminated IPR2024-00467 and IPR2024-00563. On August 13, 2025, the PTAB terminated IPR2022-00142 following remand from the Federal Circuit. On March 28, 2025, B&L Inc. received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Somerset Therapeutics, LLC (“Somerset”), in which Somerset asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Somerset’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Somerset. On April 28, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Somerset and certain affiliates pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Somerset of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Somerset ANDA. The case was dismissed on January 12, 2026. On April 25, 2025, B&L Inc. and Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Gland Pharma Limited (“Gland”), in which Gland asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Gland’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Gland. On April 28, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Gland pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Gland of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Gland ANDA. A stipulation and order of dismissal was entered by the court on December 23, 2025. On November 6, 2025, B&L Inc. and Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Granules India Ltd. (“Granules”), in which Granules asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Granules’ generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Granules. On December 9, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Granules pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Granules of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Granules ANDA. A consent judgment was entered by the court on April 1, 2026, and the matter was dismissed. There are currently no ongoing litigation proceedings with respect to Lumify® drops. In addition to the intellectual property matters described above, in connection with the Vyzulta® and Lotemax® SM products, the Company previously commenced infringement proceedings against potential generic competitors in the U.S., certain of which are ongoing. In connection with Vyzulta®, two matters have been resolved and dismissed and one matter was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is ongoing. In connection with Lotemax® SM, one matter resulted in a four-day bench trial starting January 13, 2025 and the case was dismissed without prejudice on January 5, 2026; another matter was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and was dismissed without prejudice on March 18, 2026. Completed or Inactive Matters The following matters have concluded, have settled, are the subject of an agreement to settle or have otherwise been closed during or prior to the three months ended March 31, 2026 or have been inactive from the Company’s perspective for several fiscal quarters or the Company anticipates that no further material activity will take place with respect thereto. Due to the closure, settlement, inactivity or change in status of the matters referenced below, these matters will no longer appear in the Company’s future public reports and disclosures, unless required or as deemed appropriate. With respect to inactive matters, to the extent material activity takes place in subsequent quarters with respect thereto, the Company will provide updates as required or as deemed appropriate. U.S. Securities Litigation – New Jersey Declaratory Judgment Lawsuit On March 24, 2022, BHC and Bausch + Lomb were named in a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, Chancery Division, brought by certain individual investors in BHC’s common shares and debt securities who are also maintaining individual securities fraud claims against BHC and certain current or former officers and directors as part of the U.S. Securities Litigation. This action sought a declaratory judgment that alleged transfers of certain BHC assets to Bausch + Lomb would constitute a voidable transfer under the New Jersey Voidable Transactions Act and that Bausch + Lomb would be liable for damages, if any, awarded against BHC in the individual opt-out actions. The declaratory judgment action also alleged that the potential future separation of Bausch + Lomb from BHC by distribution of Bausch + Lomb stock to BHC’s shareholders would leave BHC with inadequate financial resources to satisfy these plaintiffs’ alleged securities fraud damages in the underlying individual opt-out actions. None of the plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action have obtained a judgment against BHC in the underlying individual opt-out actions and BHC disputes the claims against it in those underlying actions. The underlying individual opt-out actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and certain actions assert claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act. The allegations in those underlying individual opt-out actions are made against BHC and several of its former officers and directors only and relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements made during the 2013-2016 time period by BHC and/or failures to disclose information about BHC’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing and the use of specialty pharmacies. On March 31, 2022, BHC and Bausch + Lomb removed the declaratory judgment action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On November 29, 2022, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ remand motion and the case was remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court Chancery Division. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a proposed Order to Show Cause and motion for a preliminary injunction and sought interim relief including expedited discovery. On December 13, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ proposed Order to Show Cause and stayed discovery pending the resolution of BHC’s and Bausch + Lomb’s forthcoming motions to dismiss, while instructing BHC to provide certain notice to Plaintiffs of the intended completion of a potential future distribution referenced above under certain circumstances. On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, added claims seeking injunctive relief. On January 11, 2023, BHC and Bausch + Lomb moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing was complete on February 24, 2023, and the motion to dismiss was heard on March 3, 2023. On April 3, 2023, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. In early August 2025, a settlement was reached and, on August 29, 2025, the Court issued an order staying this action pending satisfaction of certain conditions to that settlement. The case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2026.

BHC and its subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“Bausch Health US”), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“Bausch Health Americas”) (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively, the “Company”), are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation (“MDL”) entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16 MD-2724). Bausch + Lomb Corporation had been named as a defendant in the MDL in one complaint, but this complaint has been amended to remove Bausch + Lomb Corporation and, as a result, Bausch + Lomb Corporation is no longer a party to the MDL. The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits, which are brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, hospitals, pharmacies, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, are consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which are consolidated in

the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. State of Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., (D. CT, C.A. No. 3:20-00802), in which Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas are defendants, has been remanded to and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas have reached an agreement in principle to settle the Connecticut case, which remains subject to final court approval. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County and New York State Supreme Court against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation. The Company disputes the claims against it and these cases will be defended vigorously.

Additionally, BHC and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively the “Company”) were named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20). The plaintiff sought to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under federal law. The proposed class action contained similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On February, 20, 2026, the Canadian court declined to certify the action and dismissed the action against the Company. The deadline for the filing of an appeal has passed with no appeal filed.

These lawsuits cover products of both Bausch + Lomb and BHC’s other businesses. It is anticipated that Bausch + Lomb and BHC will split the fees and expenses associated with defending these claims, as well as any potential damages or other liabilities awarded in or otherwise arising from these claims, in the manner set forth in the MSA.

Product Liability

Shower to Shower® Products Liability Litigation

Since 2016, BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, have been named in a number of product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower® body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, twenty-three (23) of such product liability suits currently remain pending. In three (3) cases pending in the Atlantic County, New Jersey Multi-County Litigation, agreed stipulations of dismissal have been entered by the Court, thus dismissing the Company from those cases. One (1) case was also recently dismissed with prejudice in its entirety for failure of plaintiff to comply with court orders requiring plaintiff fact sheets. Two (2) cases in the federal Multidistrict Litigation were dismissed recently for failure to comply with orders requiring Plaintiff Profile Forms. Potential liability (including its attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. Twenty-two (22) of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that the use of Shower to Shower® caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or breast cancer. The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or punitive damages. The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, two proposed class actions were filed in Canada against BHC and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower®. The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec). The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. On November 17, 2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to certify a class as to BHC or Shower to Shower®, and at this time no appeal of that judgment has been filed. On December 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the British Columbia class action filed a Second Amended Notice of Civil Claim and Application for Certification, removing BHC as a defendant; as a result, the British Columbia class action is concluded as to BHC.

In October 2021, Johnson & Johnson, through one or more subsidiaries purported to complete a Texas divisional merger with respect to any talc liabilities at Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (“JJCI”). LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”), the resulting entity of the divisional merger, assumed JJCI’s talc liabilities and thereafter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina, which in November 2021 was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey (the “New Jersey Bankruptcy Court”). The first bankruptcy case was dismissed on April 4, 2023, after a decision by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and LTL re-filed a new Chapter 11 case on the same day. Several motions to dismiss were again filed, and on August 11, 2023, the second Chapter 11 case was dismissed. LTL and certain supporting creditors and tort claimants appealed, and on July 25, 2024, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal order, and LTL’s second bankruptcy case was closed. During the pendency of LTL’s bankruptcy cases, the New Jersey Bankruptcy Court extended a preliminary injunction that had stayed substantially all cases subject to the

indemnification agreement related to Johnson & Johnson’s talc liability, which injunction was terminated in connection with the bankruptcy case dismissal.

In December 2023, LTL changed its name to LLT Management LLC (“LLT”). In June and July 2024, LLT solicited votes for a new “pre-packaged” Chapter 11 plan, and after the reported successful solicitation of votes to commence the planned bankruptcy, LLT and certain affiliates underwent another corporate restructuring that resulted in two entities, Red River Talc LLC (“Red River”) and Pecos River Talc LLC (“Pecos River”), assuming the talc liabilities of LLT. On September 20, 2024, Red River filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Texas Bankruptcy Court”), seeking to resolve all ovarian cancer-related talc claims. On October 21, 2024, the Texas Bankruptcy Court agreed to enter a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying all ovarian cancer-related talc claims at least through December 2024, which it has since extended through March 15, 2025. On December 9, 2024, Red River filed a Second Amended Chapter 11 plan incorporating the settlement with the Talc Claimants’ Committee. A hearing on confirmation of the plan and any objections thereto began on February 18, 2025. Johnson & Johnson has reported that the entity Pecos River will be responsible for resolving all non-ovarian cancer-related talc claims outside of bankruptcy. After the conclusion of the confirmation hearing, on March 31, 2025, the Texas Bankruptcy Court issued a memorandum decision denying confirmation of the plan, ordering the dismissal of Red River’s bankruptcy case and vacating the preliminary injunction. The debtor’s time to appeal has expired. Certain claimants filed motions to reconsider the dismissal of the bankruptcy case. Those motions were denied and the time to appeal has expired.

Red River, Pecos River and Johnson & Johnson continue to have indemnification obligations running to BHC and its affiliates, including Bausch + Lomb, for Shower to Shower® related product liability litigation. It is our expectation that Johnson & Johnson, in accordance with the applicable indemnification agreement, will continue to vigorously defend BHC and Bausch + Lomb in each of the remaining actions, and that BHC and Bausch + Lomb will not incur any material losses with respect to indemnification claims as a result of the divisional merger or the bankruptcy.

General Civil Actions

Doctors Allergy Formula Lawsuit

In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against Bausch Health Americas in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting breach of contract and related claims under a 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement, which purports to include milestone payments that Doctors Allergy alleges should have been paid by Bausch Health Americas. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. Bausch Health Americas has asserted counterclaims against Doctors Allergy. Bausch Health Americas filed a motion seeking an order granting Bausch Health Americas’ motion for summary judgment on its counterclaims against Doctors Allergy and dismissing Doctors Allergy’s claims against Bausch Health Americas. The motion was fully briefed as of May 2021.The Court held a hearing on the motion on January 25, 2022. On May 12, 2023, the Court issued a Decision and Order denying the motion. On June 14, 2023, Bausch Health Americas filed a Notice of Appeal as to the Decision and Order. On March 13, 2024, Bausch Health Americas filed its appellate brief with the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First Department, appealing the trial court’s denial of Bausch Health America’s motion for summary judgment. Doctors Allergy filed its answering brief on July 26, 2024, and Bausch Health Americas filed its reply brief on September 13, 2024. The Appellate Division heard oral argument on November 7, 2024. On December 5, 2024, the Appellate Division denied Bausch Health Americas’ appeal as to Doctors Allergy’s second cause of action (breach of contract) and Bausch Health Americas’ counterclaims, but it granted the appeal as to Doctors Allergy’s third cause of action (breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing) and dismissed that claim. On December 13, 2024, the Appellate Division remitted this action back to the trial court. Trial is ongoing, with jury selection having begun on April 20, 2026, and trial scheduled to continue until May 8, 2026. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and this lawsuit will be defended vigorously.

Intellectual Property Matters

On August 16, 2021, Bausch & Lomb Incorporated (“B&L Inc.”) received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Slayback Pharma LLC (“Slayback”), in which Slayback asserted that certain U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops (the “Lumify Patents”), are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Slayback’s generic drops, for which an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) has been filed by Slayback. B&L Inc., through its affiliate Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, exclusively licenses the Lumify Patents from Eye Therapies, LLC (“Eye Therapies”). On September 10, 2021, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Slayback pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Slayback of one or more claims of the Lumify Patents (the “Slayback Lawsuit”), thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Slayback ANDA. Since then, U.S. Patent No. 9,259,425 has been dismissed from the case.

On May 15, 2023, the United States Patent & Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “PTAB”) issued a Final Written Decision, finding all claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,293,742 unpatentable (IPR2022-00142). This decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). The Federal Circuit issued its opinion on June 30, 2025, which reversed the PTAB’s claim construction of certain limitation, vacated its obviousness finding, and remanded for further proceedings.

Furthermore, two additional patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245) have issued and been listed in the Orange Book as related to Lumify®. Lawsuits alleging infringement of these patents were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Slayback and its licensees, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories S.A. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “DRL”) (the “DRL Lawsuits”). The Slayback Lawsuit and DRL Lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into one district court action before the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (3:21-cv-16766-RK-RLS). On December 15, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction requesting the court to enjoin any infringing activities by DRL and a hearing was held in January 2024. On May 10, 2024, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion, finding that Plaintiffs had not proven that they would be “irreparably harmed” absent a preliminary injunction.

Additionally, on December 18, 2023, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, and Eye Therapies amended its complaint in the consolidated district court action to add claims for copyright infringement, as well as claims under the Lanham Act, including trademark and trade dress infringement. DRL subsequently petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,596,600 and 11,833,245 and the PTAB instituted both petitions (IPR2024-00467 and IPR2024-00563). Oral argument was held before the PTAB on May 13, 2025.

On July 9, 2025, settlement was reached with DRL and B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited, Eye Therapies and DRL entered into a settlement agreement effective as of July 9, 2025, providing for, among other things, a market entry date of June 30, 2027 (or earlier subject to certain acceleration clauses) for DRL’s generic drops. On July 14, 2025, the consolidated district court action (3:21-cv-16766-RK-RLS) was dismissed without prejudice and on July 22, 2025, the PTAB terminated IPR2024-00467 and IPR2024-00563. On August 13, 2025, the PTAB terminated IPR2022-00142 following remand from the Federal Circuit.

On March 28, 2025, B&L Inc. received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Somerset Therapeutics, LLC (“Somerset”), in which Somerset asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Somerset’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Somerset. On April 28, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Somerset and certain affiliates pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Somerset of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Somerset ANDA. The case was dismissed on January 12, 2026.

On April 25, 2025, B&L Inc. and Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Gland Pharma Limited (“Gland”), in which Gland asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Gland’s generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Gland. On April 28, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Gland pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Gland of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Gland ANDA. A stipulation and order of dismissal was entered by the court on December 23, 2025.

On November 6, 2025, B&L Inc. and Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Granules India Ltd. (“Granules”), in which Granules asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,293,742, 9,259,425, 11,596,600 and 11,833,245, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Lumify® (brimonidine tartrate solution) drops, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Granules’ generic drops, for which an ANDA has been filed by Granules. On December 9, 2025, B&L Inc., Bausch + Lomb Ireland Limited and Eye Therapies filed suit against Granules pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Granules of one or more claims of such Lumify Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Granules ANDA. A consent judgment was entered by the court on April 1, 2026, and the matter was dismissed.

There are currently no ongoing litigation proceedings with respect to Lumify® drops.

In addition to the intellectual property matters described above, in connection with the Vyzulta® and Lotemax® SM products, the Company previously commenced infringement proceedings against potential generic competitors in the U.S., certain of which are ongoing. In connection with Vyzulta®, two matters have been resolved and dismissed and one matter was recently filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is ongoing. In connection with Lotemax® SM, one matter

On March 24, 2022, BHC and Bausch + Lomb were named in a declaratory judgment action in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County, Chancery Division, brought by certain individual investors in BHC’s common shares and debt securities who are also maintaining individual securities fraud claims against BHC and certain current or former officers and directors as part of the U.S. Securities Litigation. This action sought a declaratory judgment that alleged transfers of certain BHC assets to Bausch + Lomb would constitute a voidable transfer under the New Jersey Voidable Transactions Act and that Bausch + Lomb would be liable for damages, if any, awarded against BHC in the individual opt-out actions. The declaratory judgment action also alleged that the potential future separation of Bausch + Lomb from BHC by distribution of Bausch + Lomb stock to BHC’s shareholders would leave BHC with inadequate financial resources to satisfy these plaintiffs’ alleged securities fraud damages in the underlying individual opt-out actions. None of the plaintiffs in this declaratory judgment action have obtained a judgment against BHC in the underlying individual opt-out actions and BHC disputes the claims against it in those underlying actions. The underlying individual opt-out actions assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), and certain actions assert claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act. The allegations in those underlying individual opt-out actions are made against BHC and several of its former officers and directors only and relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements made during the 2013-2016 time period by BHC and/or failures to disclose information about BHC’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing and the use of specialty pharmacies. On March 31, 2022, BHC and Bausch + Lomb removed the declaratory judgment action to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On April 29, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand. On November 29, 2022, the District Court granted Plaintiffs’ remand motion and the case was remanded to the New Jersey Superior Court Chancery Division. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a proposed Order to Show Cause and motion for a preliminary injunction and sought interim relief including expedited discovery. On December 13, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ proposed Order to Show Cause and stayed discovery pending the resolution of BHC’s and Bausch + Lomb’s forthcoming motions to dismiss, while instructing BHC to provide certain notice to Plaintiffs of the intended completion of a potential future distribution referenced above under certain circumstances. On December 22, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, among other things, added claims seeking injunctive relief. On January 11, 2023, BHC and Bausch + Lomb moved to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing was complete on February 24, 2023, and the motion to dismiss was heard on March 3, 2023. On April 3, 2023, the Court issued a decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. In early August 2025, a settlement was reached and, on August 29, 2025, the Court issued an order staying this action pending satisfaction of certain conditions to that settlement. The case was dismissed with prejudice in January 2026.