BMS CVR Litigation & Milestone Timeline Analyzer

Contractual Payout at Risk

$6,435,000,000

715M CVR units × $9.00/unit face value

Milestone Delay Incurred

36 Days

Dec 31, 2020 target ➔ Feb 5, 2021 actual

Expected Value / CVR Unit

$4.05

Litigation-weighted recovery value

Aggregate Damages Exposure

$2,895,750,000

Includes 9% NY statutory pre-judgment interest

📅 Multi-Track FDA Regulatory Timeline

Hover or scrub events to inspect delay vectors

Scrub Date:

Dec 31, 2020 (Deadline Missed)

Milestone Clause Condition: All 3 drugs required timely FDA approval: (1) Ozanimod (Approved Mar 2020), (2) Ide-cel/Abecma (Approved Mar 2021 before Mar 31 deadline), and (3) Liso-cel/Breyanzi (Target: Dec 31, 2020; Missed by 36 days). Miss caused total forfeiture of $9.00/unit payout.

⚖️ Litigation Risk & Damages Probability Tree

Adjust litigation probabilities in real time

Breach of Diligent Efforts Probability 45%

Likelihood court finds BMS slow-walked FDA response to avoid $6.4B liability

Negotiated Settlement Discount Factor 65%

Percentage of $9.00 face value recoverable in structured pre-trial settlement

Pre-Judgment Interest (NY Statutory 9% p.a.) 3.5 Years

Compounded interest from milestone breach date (Dec 31, 2020)

Contingent Value Rights Agreement — Section 7.8 "Diligent Efforts" Clause

"Bristol-Myers Squibb Company covenants to use 'Diligent Efforts' to achieve the Milestone Target Dates... defined as using such efforts and resources as BMS would normally use for a product owned by it, which is of similar market potential at a similar stage in its development."

Litigation Context: Plaintiffs allege BMS purposely delayed FDA Form 483 inspection responses for the Bothell, Washington cell-therapy facility and delayed electronic submissions for Breyanzi (liso-cel) to push approval past December 31, 2020. Doing so successfully avoided a $6.435 billion cash payout to former Celgene shareholders, as the CVR contract dictated an all-or-nothing payout structure.

Second Circuit Revival: The federal appellate court vacated the prior dismissal, ruling that plaintiff noteholders adequately pleaded specific factual allegations of non-diligent scheduling, mismanaged FDA inspection remediation, and conflicting prioritization between in-house products and acquired Celgene assets.