Back to GetFilings.com

Table of Contents

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003

Commission File Number 1-1136

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

345 Park Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10154

(Address of principal executive offices)

Telephone: (212) 546-4000

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes  x  No  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes  x  No  ¨

At April 30, 2003, there were 1,938,328,170 shares outstanding of the Registrant’s $.10 par value Common Stock.

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

INDEX TO FORM 10-Q

March 31, 2003

2

Table of Contents

PART I – FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET

(UNAUDITED)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

3

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS,

COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS

(UNAUDITED)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

4

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF EARNINGS,

COMPREHENSIVE INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

5

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS

(UNAUDITED)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

6

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 1: Basis of Presentation and New Accounting Standards

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (the Company) prepared these unaudited consolidated financial statements following the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for interim reporting. Under those rules, certain footnotes and other financial information that are normally required by GAAP for annual financial statements can be condensed or omitted. The Company is responsible for the consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-Q. These consolidated financial statements include all normal and recurring adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the Company’s financial position at March 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and March 31, 2002. These consolidated financial statements should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and the related notes included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 (2002 Form 10-K). PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company’s independent accountants, have performed a review of the unaudited consolidated financial statements included in this Form 10-Q, and their review report thereon accompanies this Form 10-Q.

Revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities can vary during each quarter of the year. Accordingly, the results and trends in these unaudited consolidated interim financial statements may not be the same as those for the full year.

The Company recognizes revenue for sales upon shipment of product to its customers, except in the case of certain transactions with its U.S. pharmaceuticals wholesalers which are accounted for using the consignment model. Under GAAP, revenue is recognized when substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership have transferred. In the case of sales made to wholesalers (1) as a result of incentives, (2) in excess of the wholesaler’s ordinary course of business inventory level, (3) at a time when there was an understanding, agreement, course of dealing or consistent business practice that the Company would extend incentives based on levels of excess inventory in connection with future purchases and (4) at a time when such incentives would cover substantially all, and vary directly with, the wholesaler’s cost of carrying inventory in excess of the wholesaler’s ordinary course of business inventory level, substantially all the risks and rewards of ownership do not transfer upon shipment and, accordingly, such sales should be accounted for using the consignment model. The determination of when, if at all, sales to a wholesaler meet the foregoing criteria involves evaluation of a variety of factors and a number of complex judgments. Under the consignment model, the Company does not recognize revenue upon shipment of product. Rather, upon shipment of product the Company invoices the wholesaler, records deferred revenue at gross invoice sales price and classifies the inventory held by the wholesalers as consignment inventory at the Company’s cost of such inventory. The Company recognizes revenue when the consignment inventory is no longer subject to incentive arrangements but not later than when such inventory is sold through to the wholesalers’ customers, on a first-in first-out (FIFO) basis.

Revenues are reduced at the time of sale to reflect expected returns that are estimated based on historical experience. Additionally, provision is made at the time of sale for all discounts, rebates and estimated sales allowances based on historical experience updated for changes in facts and circumstances, as appropriate. Such provision is recorded as a reduction of revenue.

In addition, the Company includes alliance revenue in net sales. The Company has agreements to promote pharmaceuticals discovered by other companies. Alliance revenue is based upon a percentage of the Company’s co-promotion partners’ net sales and is earned when the co-promotion partners ship the related product and title passes to their customer.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and contingent liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. The most significant assumptions are employed in estimates used in determining values of intangible assets, restructuring charges and accruals, sales rebate and return accruals, legal contingencies and tax assets and tax liabilities, as well as in estimates used in applying the revenue recognition policy and accounting for retirement and postretirement benefits (including the actuarial assumptions). Actual results could differ from the estimated results.

7

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 1: Basis of Presentation and New Accounting Standards (Continued)

Certain prior year amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current year presentation.

In January 2003, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) issued Interpretation No. 46, Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities (FIN 46). FIN 46 requires a variable interest entity to be consolidated by a company if that company is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from the variable interest entity’s activities or entitled to receive a majority of the entity’s residual returns or both. FIN 46 also requires disclosures about variable interest entities that a company is not required to consolidate but in which it has a significant variable interest. The consolidation requirements of FIN 46 apply immediately to variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003 and to existing entities in the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. Certain of the disclosure requirements apply to all financial statements issued after January 31, 2003, regardless of when the variable interest entity was established. Based on its assessment of FIN 46, the Company has concluded that ImClone Systems Incorporated (ImClone) does not meet the criteria to be considered a variable interest entity in relation to the Company.

In accordance with SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure, the following table summarizes the Company’s results on a pro forma basis as if it had recorded compensation expense based upon the fair value at the grant date for awards under these plans consistent with the methodology prescribed under SFAS No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation, for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002:

In November 2002, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 45, Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others (FIN 45). FIN 45 requires a guarantor to recognize a liability at the inception of the guarantee for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guarantee and include more detailed disclosure with respect to guarantees. The types of contracts the Company enters into that meet the scope of this interpretation are financial and performance standby letters of credit on behalf of wholly-owned subsidiaries. FIN 45 is effective for guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002. The initial adoption of this accounting pronouncement did not have a material effect on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

8

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 1: Basis of Presentation and New Accounting Standards (Continued)

In November 2002, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) reached a consensus on EITF Issue No. 00-21, Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables. EITF No. 00-21 provides guidance on how to determine when an arrangement that involves multiple revenue-generating activities or deliverables should be divided into separate units of accounting for revenue recognition purposes, and if this division is required, how the arrangement consideration should be allocated among the separate units of accounting. The guidance in the consensus is effective for revenue arrangements entered into in the fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2003. The Company is currently waiting for the EITF to complete its deliberations on certain implementation provisions to finalize its evaluation of the effect that the adoption of EITF No. 00-21 will have on its consolidated financial statements.

In June 2001, the FASB issued SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations. Under SFAS No. 143, the fair value of a liability for an asset retirement obligation must be recognized in the period in which it is incurred if a reasonable estimate of fair value can be made. The associated asset retirement costs are capitalized as part of the carrying amount of the long-lived asset. The provisions of SFAS No. 143 are effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2002. The initial adoption of this standard did not have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

Note 2: Restructuring and Other Items

In the first quarter of 2003, the Company recorded a pretax charge of $12 million, related to termination benefits for workforce reductions of 340 manufacturing employees in the Pharmaceuticals segment and downsizing and streamlining of worldwide manufacturing operations. In addition, the Company recorded $10 million in cost of products sold for asset impairments and $4 million in other (income)/ expense for accelerated depreciation of certain manufacturing facilities in North America expected to be closed by the end of 2004.

In the first quarter of 2002, an adjustment to prior year reserves of $1 million was made to reflect reduced estimates of separation costs.

Restructuring charges and spending against accrued liabilities associated with prior and current actions are as follows:

9

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 3: Earnings Per Share

Basic earnings per common share are computed using the weighted-average number of shares outstanding during the year. Diluted earnings per common share are computed using the weighted-average number of shares outstanding during the year, plus the incremental shares outstanding assuming the exercise of dilutive stock options. The computations for basic earnings per common share and diluted earnings per common share are as follows:

Weighted-average shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options, which were not included in the diluted earnings per share calculation because they were not dilutive, were 120 million for the three month period ended March 31, 2003 and 81 million for the three month period ended March 31, 2002.

10

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 4: Goodwill

The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill for the year ended December 31, 2002 and the three months ended March 31, 2003, were as follows:

In accordance with SFAS No. 142, which the Company adopted in January 2002, goodwill was tested for impairment upon adoption of the standard and is required to be tested annually thereafter. The Company completed the assessment upon adoption, which indicated no impairment of goodwill. The Company uses a two-step process in testing for goodwill impairment. The first step is to identify a potential impairment, and the second step measures the amount of the impairment loss, if any. Goodwill is deemed to be impaired if the carrying amount of a reporting unit’s goodwill exceeds its estimated fair value. The Company has completed its 2003 annual goodwill impairment assessment, which indicated no impairment of goodwill.

Note 5: Intangible Assets

As of March 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, intangible assets consisted of the following:

11

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 5: Intangible Assets (Continued)

Amortization expense for intangible assets (the majority of which is included in cost of products sold) for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 was $59 million and $66 million, respectively. Expected amortization expense through 2008 related to the current balance of intangible assets is as follows:

Note 6: Alliances and Investments

ImClone

The Company has a commercialization agreement that expires in 2018 with ImClone, a biopharmaceutical company focused on developing targeted cancer treatments, for the codevelopment and copromotion of ERBITUX* in the U.S., Canada and Japan. In accordance with the terms of the agreement, the Company paid ImClone $200 million, of which $140 million was paid in March 2002 and $60 million was paid in March 2003. The Company will also pay ImClone $500 million in milestone payments: $250 million upon approval of the initial indication and the remaining $250 million upon approval of a second indication. Under the agreement, ImClone will receive a distribution fee based on a flat rate of 39% of product revenues in North America.

With respect to the $200 million of milestone payments the Company paid ImClone, $160 million (or 80.1%) was expensed in the first quarter of 2002 as acquired in-process research and development, and $40 million (or 19.9%) was recorded as an additional equity investment to eliminate the income statement effect of the portion of the milestone payment for which the Company has an economic claim through its 19.9% ownership interest in ImClone.

In the first quarter of 2003, the Company recorded a $23 million net loss for its share of ImClone’s losses, including $12 million reflecting the Company’s estimate of its share of ImClone’s net losses related to ImClone’s recent announcement that it will need to restate its 2001 and later financial statements and possibly certain of its earlier financial statements for certain withholding tax liabilities associated with the exercise of warrants and options held by its current and former officers, directors and employees.

On April 9, 2003, ImClone stated that it expects that the total amount to be reflected on its balance sheet relating to the matters giving rise to the expected restatement could be up to $60 million, exclusive of penalties and interest, and that the amount ultimately charged against its earnings will be determined by the results of its ongoing review of these matters. As a result of the expected restatement, ImClone delayed filing its 2002 Form 10-K and has not yet reported its results for the year 2002; in addition, ImClone has not yet reported its results for the first quarter of 2003. In the event ImClone’s restated financial information or reported financial information for the year 2002 and the first quarter of 2003 differs significantly from the financial information the Company used for recording its share of ImClone’s losses, the Company will record an adjustment to its equity earnings and will disclose the impact of any such differences on its results.

On April 9, 2003, ImClone also announced that due to the delay in filing its 2002 Form 10-K, it has failed to comply with certain filing requirements under Nasdaq listing qualification rules and its securities may be delisted from The Nasdaq National Market. In its announcement, ImClone stated that it will take certain actions to avoid a delisting of its securities and

12

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 6: Alliances and Investments (Continued)

that it intends to file its 2002 Form 10-K, curing non-compliance with the Nasdaq filing requirements, prior to a delisting action.

The total equity investment in ImClone as of March 31, 2003 was $79 million. On a per share basis, the carrying value of the ImClone investment and the closing market price of the ImClone shares as of March 31, 2003 were $5.52 and $16.54, respectively.

In the third quarter of 2002, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $379 million for an other than temporary decline in the market value of ImClone based on the decline in value of ImClone’s shares during 2002. The fair value of the equity investment in ImClone used to record the impairment was based on the market value of ImClone shares on September 30, 2002.

Sanofi-Synthelabo

In 1997, the Company entered into a codevelopment and comarketing agreement with Sanofi-Synthelabo (Sanofi) for two products: AVAPRO* (irbesartan), an angiotensin II receptor antagonist indicated for the treatment of hypertension, and PLAVIX* (clopidogrel), a platelet inhibitor. The worldwide alliance operates under the framework of two geographic territories: one in the Americas and Australia and the other in Europe and Asia. Two territory partnerships were formed to manage central expenses, such as marketing, research and development and royalties, and to supply finished product to the individual countries. At the country level, agreements either to copromote (whereby a partnership was formed between the parties to sell each brand) or to comarket (whereby the parties operate and sell their brands independently of each other) are in place.

The Company acts as the operating partner for the territory covering the Americas (principally the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico, and Latin American countries) and Australia and owns the majority financial controlling interest in this territory. As such, the Company consolidates all country partnership results for this territory and records Sanofi’s share of the results as a minority interest expense, net of taxes, which was $47 million and $65 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. For the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, the Company recorded sales in this territory and in comarketing countries of $583 million and $600 million, respectively.

Sanofi acts as the operating partner for the territory covering Europe and Asia and owns the majority controlling interest in this territory. The Company accounts for the investment in partnership entities in this territory under the equity method and records its share of the results as net income from unconsolidated affiliates (included in minority interest, net of taxes). The Company recorded its share of equity earnings in this territory of $31 million and $20 million for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

In 2001, the Company and Sanofi formed an alliance for the copromotion of irbesartan, as part of which the Company contributed the irbesartan intellectual property and Sanofi paid the Company $350 million. The Company accounts for this transaction as a sale of an interest in a license and defers and amortizes the $350 million into income over the expected useful life of the license, which is approximately eleven years. The Company amortized into other income $8 million in each of the three month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002.

Otsuka

In 1999, the Company entered into a worldwide commercialization agreement with Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (Otsuka), to codevelop and copromote ABILIFY* (aripiprazole) for the treatment of schizophrenia. The Company began copromoting the product with Otsuka in the U.S. and Puerto Rico in November 2002. The Company will also copromote the product in several European countries after receiving marketing approval from the European authorities. The Company

13

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 6: Alliances and Investments (Continued)

records alliance revenue for its 65% share of the net sales in these copromotion countries and records all expenses related to the product. The Company also has an exclusive right to sell ABILIFY* in a number of countries in Europe, Latin America, and Asia. In these countries, the Company records 100% of the net sales. The Company recorded $37 million in alliance revenue related to ABILIFY* for the three months ended March 31, 2003.

Note 7: Divestitures and Discontinued Operations

Divestitures

During the first quarter of 2002, the Company completed the sale of two branded products resulting in a pretax gain of $30 million.

Discontinued Operations

Discontinued operations in the three months ended March 31, 2002 consist of an after-tax adjustment to increase the gain on the sale of Clairol as a result of a final purchase price settlement.

Note 8: Business Segments

The Company has three reportable segments – Pharmaceuticals, Nutritionals, and Other Healthcare. The Pharmaceuticals segment is comprised of the global pharmaceutical and international (excluding Japan) consumer medicines businesses. The Nutritionals segment consists of Mead Johnson Nutritionals, primarily an infant formula business. The Other Healthcare segment consists of the ConvaTec, Medical Imaging, and Consumer Medicines (U.S. and Japan) businesses.

Included in earnings from continuing operations before minority interest and income taxes of each segment is a cost of capital charge. The elimination of the cost of capital charge is in Corporate/Other. Corporate/Other principally consists of interest expense, interest income, certain administrative expenses and allocations to the segments. In 2003, Pharmaceuticals and Corporate/Other include the following items: Pharmaceuticals – income of $21 million from a vitamins litigation settlement, $4 million of accelerated depreciation expense for facilities expected to be abandoned and a $10 million asset impairment charge; Corporate/Other – a $12 million restructuring charge. In 2002, Pharmaceuticals and Corporate/Other include the following items: Pharmaceuticals – a $160 million in-process research and development charge related to milestone payments to ImClone; Corporate/Other – a $90 million accrual for BUSPAR litigation and a $30 million gain on the sale of two branded products.

14

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 9: Other (Income)/Expense

The components of other (income)/expense are:

Interest expense in 2003 and 2002 is primarily related to the $5.0 billion debt issuance in conjunction with the DuPont and ImClone transactions. In 2003, interest expense also relates to portfolio swap transactions and commercial paper. Interest income in 2003 is primarily related to portfolio swap transactions.

Note 10: Litigation Matters

Various lawsuits, claims and proceedings are pending against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries. In accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies, the Company records accruals for such contingencies when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. The Company did not incur any litigation charges in the three months ended March 31, 2003. In the three months ended March 31, 2002, the Company recognized $90 million related to litigation matters. The most significant of the Company’s litigation matters are described below.

TAXOL^® LITIGATION

In 1997 and 1998, the Company filed several lawsuits asserting that a number of generic drug companies infringed its patents covering methods of administering paclitaxel when they filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications seeking regulatory approval to sell paclitaxel. These actions were consolidated for discovery in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (District Court). The Company did not assert a monetary claim against any of the defendants, but sought to prevent the defendants from marketing paclitaxel in a manner that violates its patents. The defendants asserted that they did not infringe the Company’s patents and that these patents are invalid and unenforceable.

In early 2000, the District Court invalidated most claims of the Company’s patents at issue. On April 20, 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment of the invalidity of all but two claims of the patents at issue. Those two claims relate to the low-dose, three-hour administration of paclitaxel in which the patient is given a specified regimen of premedicants before the administration of paclitaxel. The appellate court remanded those two claims to the District Court for further proceedings. In 2001, the Company filed an additional patent infringement suit against another company seeking to market generic paclitaxel.

In September 2000, one of the defendants received final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Abbreviated New Drug Application for paclitaxel and is marketing the product. The FDA has since announced additional final approvals and sales of additional generic products have begun.

15

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 10: Litigation Matters (Continued)

Some of the defendants asserted counterclaims seeking damages for alleged antitrust and unfair competition violations. The Company believed its patents were valid when it filed the suits, and the counterclaims asserted are believed to be without merit. The lawsuits with all defendants who asserted counterclaims have been settled, with the defendants agreeing to drop all claims relating to paclitaxel and the Company granting licenses to them under certain paclitaxel patent rights.

Since the filing of the initial patent infringement suits, seven private actions have been filed by parties alleging antitrust, consumer protection and similar claims relating to the Company’s actions to obtain and enforce patent rights. The most recent of the seven private actions was brought in March 2003 by a purported competitor alleging antitrust claims relating to the Company’s actions to obtain and enforce patent rights, an alleged conspiracy to block the entry of generic paclitaxel into the market and the alleged restriction of the supply of TAXOL^® raw materials. The plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, damages (including treble and/or punitive damages where allowed), restitution, disgorgement, equitable relief and injunctive relief. In June 2002, a group of 32 state attorneys general, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands brought similar claims. In April 2003, the states amended their complaint to add 18 states, Guam, Mariana Islands and American Samoa as plaintiffs. In September 2000, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) initiated an investigation relating to paclitaxel.

On January 7, 2003, the Company announced that it reached agreements in principle that would settle substantially all antitrust litigation surrounding TAXOL^®. The amount of the TAXOL^® antitrust settlements is expected to be $135 million, the full amount of which was accrued in the third quarter of 2002. Certain important terms and conditions of the settlements remain to be finalized, and certain settlements require court approval and are subject to opt out periods. Among the provisions remaining to be negotiated are the terms for incorporating certain claimants, including a number of health insurers, into the existing settlement framework. The Company is in discussions with a number of insurers. Whether they will ultimately join the proposed settlement cannot be predicted with certainty at this time.

The state attorneys general have executed a settlement agreement with the Company and that agreement is subject to court approval. The Company has also reached agreement with the FTC staff on the terms of a consent order that would resolve the FTC’s investigation. The consent order was approved by the FTC commissioners on April 14, 2003 and will be in effect until April 14, 2013.

Other than with respect to the above mentioned proposed settlements, it is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these lawsuits. If the proposed settlements do not become final or do not resolve all TAXOL^®-related antitrust, consumer protection and similar claims, and if the Company were not to prevail in final, non-appealable determinations of ensuing litigation, the impact could be material.

BUSPAR LITIGATION

On November 21, 2000, the Company obtained a patent, U.S. Patent No. 6,150,365, (’365 patent), relating to a method of using BUSPAR or buspirone. The Company timely submitted information relating to the ’365 patent to the FDA for listing in an FDA publication commonly known as the “Orange Book”, and the FDA thereafter listed the patent in the Orange Book.

Delisting and Patent Suits. Generic-drug manufacturers sued the FDA and the Company to compel the delisting of the ’365 patent from the Orange Book. Although one district court declined to order the delisting of the ’365 patent, another ordered the Company to cause the delisting of the patent from the Orange Book. The Company complied with the court’s order but appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The appellate court reversed the district court that ordered the delisting. Concurrently, the Company sought to enforce the ’365 patent in actions against two generic drug manufacturers.

16

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 10: Litigation Matters (Continued)

Antitrust Suits. Following the delisting of the ’365 patent from the Orange Book, a number of purchasers of buspirone and several generic drug makers filed lawsuits against the Company alleging that it improperly triggered statutory marketing exclusivity. The plaintiffs claimed that this was a violation of antitrust, consumer protection and other similar laws. The attorneys general of 35 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia also filed suit against the Company with parallel allegations. The plaintiffs have amended their allegations to include charges that a 1994 agreement between the Company and a generic company improperly blocked the entry of generic buspirone into the market. Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment, damages (including treble and/or punitive damages where allowed), disgorgement, equitable relief and injunctive relief. In addition, two antitrust suits brought by a number of health insurers remain pending in New Jersey Superior Court. The plaintiffs’ allegations and the relief sought are similar to those in the antitrust suits consolidated in the MDL proceeding.

Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Proceedings. The Judicial Panel on MDL granted the Company’s motions to have all of the patent and antitrust cases consolidated in a single forum. The court before which the buspirone litigations are now pending issued two opinions dated February 14, 2002. In the first opinion, the court found that the ’365 patent does not cover uses of buspirone and therefore is not infringed. In the second opinion, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the federal antitrust and various state law claims. The second opinion allows the claims against the Company to proceed, except as to federal antitrust claims for damages accrued more than four years before the filing of the complaints.

Government Investigations. The FTC and a number of state attorneys general initiated investigations concerning the matters alleged in the antitrust suits and discussed above. The Company cooperated in these investigations. A number of attorneys general, but not all of them, filed an action against the Company, as noted above.

Proposed Settlements. On January 7, 2003, the Company announced that it reached agreements in principle that would settle substantially all antitrust litigation surrounding BUSPAR in the MDL proceeding. The amount of the BUSPAR settlements is expected to be $535 million, of which $35 million was accrued in the fourth quarter of 2001, $90 million was accrued in the first quarter of 2002, and $410 million was accrued in the third quarter of 2002. Written settlement agreements with a number of parties have now been signed. Certain of these settlements require court approval and are subject to opt out periods. Whether these cases will ultimately be settled cannot be predicted with certainty at this time.

The Company has also reached agreement with the FTC staff on the terms of a consent order that would resolve the FTC’s investigation. The consent order was approved by the FTC commissioners on April 14, 2003 and will remain in effect until April 14, 2013.

Other than with respect to the above mentioned proposed settlements of BUSPAR antitrust litigation, it is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these lawsuits. If the proposed settlements do not become final or do not resolve all BUSPAR-related antitrust, consumer protection and similar claims, and if the Company were not to prevail in final, non-appealable determinations of ensuing litigation, the impact could be material.

VANLEV LITIGATION

In April, May and June 2000, the Company, its former chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose, Ph.D., were named as defendants in a number of class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws and regulations. These actions have been consolidated into one action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff claims that the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information concerning the safety, efficacy and commercial viability of its product VANLEV during the period November 8, 1999 through April 19, 2000.

17

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 10: Litigation Matters (Continued)

In May 2002, the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint adding allegations that the Company, its present chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Peter R. Dolan, its former chairman of the board and chief executive officer, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose, Ph.D., disseminated materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material information concerning the safety, efficacy, and commercial viability of VANLEV during the period April 19, 2000 through March 20, 2002. A number of related class actions, making essentially the same allegations, were also filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. These actions have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiff purports to seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses on behalf of shareholders.

It is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final outcome of this litigation or reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to this litigation. If the Company were not to prevail in final, non-appealable determinations of this litigation, the impact could be material.

PLAVIX* LITIGATION

The Company is part owner of an entity that is a plaintiff in two pending patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled Sanofi-Synthelabo, Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership v. Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp., 02-CV-2255 (RWS) and Sanofi-Synthelabo, Sanofi-Synthelabo Inc. and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, LTD., and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., 02-CV-3672 (RWS). The suits are based on U.S. Patent No. 4,847,265, which discloses and claims, among other things, the hydrogen sulfate salt of clopidogrel, which is marketed as PLAVIX*, and on U.S. Patent No. 5,576,328, which discloses and claims, among other things, the use of clopidogrel to prevent a secondary ischemic event. Plaintiffs’ infringement position is based on defendants’ filing of their Abbreviated New Drug Applications with the FDA, seeking approval to sell generic clopidogrel prior to the expiration of the patents in suit.

It is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these lawsuits. If patent protection for PLAVIX* were lost, the impact on the Company’s operations could be material.

OTHER SECURITIES MATTERS

During the period March through May 2002, the Company and a number of its current and former officers were named as defendants in a number of securities class action lawsuits alleging violations of federal securities laws and regulations. The plaintiffs variously alleged that the defendants disseminated materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose material information concerning three different matters: (1) safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV (as discussed above), (2) the Company’s sales incentives to certain wholesalers and the inventory levels of those wholesalers, and (3) the Company’s investment in and relations with ImClone, and ImClone’s product, ERBITUX*. As discussed above, the allegations concerning VANLEV have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and consolidated with the action pending there. The remaining actions have been consolidated and are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on April 11, 2003 alleging a class period of October 19, 1999 through March 10, 2003. The consolidated class action complaint additionally alleges violations of federal securities laws in connection with, among other things, certain accounting issues, including issues related to the establishment of reserves, and accounting for certain asset and other sales. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

In October 2002, a number of the Company’s officers, directors and former directors were named as defendants in a shareholder derivative suit pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Company is a nominal defendant. The suit alleges, among other things, violations of the federal securities laws and breaches of contract

18

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 10: Litigation Matters (Continued)

and fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s sales incentives to certain wholesalers, the inventory levels of those wholesalers and its investment in ImClone and ImClone’s product, ERBITUX*. Two similar actions are pending in New York State court. Plaintiffs seek damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. In March 2003, a number of the Company’s officers, directors and former officers were named as defendants in two shareholder derivative lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company is a nominal defendant. One of the lawsuits also names PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (PwC) as a defendant. The lawsuits variously allege, among other things, violations of federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants in connection with the Company’s conduct concerning: safety, efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV (as discussed above); the Company’s sales incentives to certain wholesalers and the inventory levels of those wholesalers; the Company’s investment in and relations with ImClone, and ImClone’s product ERBITUX*; alleged anticompetitive behavior in connection with BUSPAR and TAXOL^®; and failure of the Board of Directors to supervise management and perform other duties. One of the lawsuits alleges malpractice by PwC. The plaintiffs seek restitution and rescission of certain officers’ and directors’ compensation and alleged improper insider trading proceeds; injunctive relief; fees, costs and expenses; and contribution and indemnification from PwC.

In April 2002, the SEC initiated an inquiry into the wholesaler inventory issues referenced above, which became a formal investigation in August 2002. In December 2002, that investigation was expanded to include certain accounting issues, including issues related to the establishment of reserves, and accounting for certain asset and other sales. In October 2002, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey announced an investigation into the wholesaler inventory issues referenced above, which has since expanded to cover the same subject matter as the SEC investigation. In the opinion of management, all material adjustments necessary to correct the previously issued financial statements have been recorded as part of the restatement, and the Company does not expect any further restatement. As described below, however, the Company cannot reasonably assess the final outcome of these investigations at this time. The Company is cooperating with both of these investigations. The Company’s own investigation is also continuing.

It is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final outcome of these litigations and investigations or reasonably to estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these litigations and investigations. The Company is producing documents and actively cooperating with these investigations, which investigations could result in the assertion of criminal and/or civil claims. If the Company were not to prevail in final, non-appealable determinations of these litigations and investigations, the impact could be material.

ERISA LITIGATION

In December 2002 and in the first quarter of 2003, the Company and others were named as defendants in a number of class actions brought under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York and the District of New Jersey. The actions filed in the District of New Jersey have been transferred to the Southern District of New York, and a consolidated complaint is expected shortly. Plaintiffs variously allege that defendants breached various fiduciary duties imposed by ERISA and owed to participants in the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company Savings and Investment Program (Program), including a duty to disseminate material information concerning: (1) safety data of the Company’s product VANLEV, (2) the Company’s sales incentives to certain wholesalers and the inventory levels of those wholesalers, and (3) the Company’s investment in and relations with ImClone, and ImClone’s product, ERBITUX*. In connection with the above allegations, plaintiffs further assert that defendants breached fiduciary duties to diversify Program assets, to monitor investment alternatives, to avoid conflicts of interest, and to remedy alleged fiduciary breaches by co-fiduciaries. In the case originally filed in the District of New Jersey, plaintiffs additionally allege violation by defendants of a duty to disseminate material information concerning alleged anti-competitive activities related to the Company’s products BUSPAR, TAXOL^®, and PRAVACHOL. Plaintiffs seek to recover losses caused by defendants’ alleged violations of ERISA and attorneys’ fees.

19

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

Note 10: Litigation Matters (Continued)

It is not possible at this time reasonably to assess the final outcome of these matters or reasonably to estimate possible loss or range of loss with respect to these lawsuits. If the Company were not to prevail in final, non-appealable determinations of these matters, the impact could be material.

AVERAGE WHOLESALE PRICING LITIGATION

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, is a defendant in a series of state and federal actions by private plaintiffs, brought as purported class actions, and complaints filed by the attorneys general of two states and one county, alleging that the manufacturers’ reporting of prices for certain products has resulted in a false and overstated Average Wholesale Price (AWP), which in turn improperly inflated the reimbursement paid by Medicare beneficiaries, insurers, state Medicaid programs, medical plans, and others to health care providers who prescribed and administered those products. The federal cases (and many of the state cases, including the attorney general cases, which have been removed to federal courts) have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes and transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation (AWP MultiDistrict Litigation). On September 6, 2002, several of the private plaintiffs in the AWP MultiDistrict Litigation filed a Master Consolidated Complaint (Master Complaint), which superseded the complaints in their pre-consolidated constituent cases. The Master Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute and state consumer protection and fair trade statutes. The Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the Master Complaint, and motions were heard on January 13, 2003. The Nevada and Montana Attorneys General have moved to have their respective cases remanded to state court and argument on the motion was held on March 7, 2003. The Company is also a defendant in related state court proceedings in New York, New Jersey, California, Arizona and Tennessee, and in one federal court proceeding in New York commenced by the County of Suffolk. The New York and New Jersey state court proceedings are currently stayed. The Company, and the other defendants, have removed, or intend to remove, the other state court cases to federal court and will seek to have them transferred to the AWP MultiDistrict Litigation. The Company anticipates that the County of Suffolk case will also be transferred there. Plaintiffs seek damages as well as injunctive relief aimed at manufacturer price reporting practices. These cases are at a very preliminary stage, and the Company is unable to assess the outcome and any possible effect on its business and profitability, or reasonably to estimate possible loss or range of loss with respect to these cases.

The Company, together with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, also has received subpoenas and other document requests from various government agencies seeking records relating to its pricing and marketing practices for drugs covered by Medicare and/or Medicaid. The requests for records have come from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts, the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services in conjunction with the Civil Division of the Department of Justice, and several states.

The Company is producing documents and actively cooperating with these investigations, which could result in the assertion of criminal and/or civil claims. The Company is unable to assess the outcome of, or to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to, these investigations, which could include the imposition of fines, penalties and administrative remedies.

20

Table of Contents

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)