Amgen Inc

Item 1A.RISK FACTORS

This report and other documents we file with the SEC contain forward-looking statements that are based on current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about us, our future performance, our business, our beliefs and our managements assumptions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties our business faces. The risks described below are not the only ones we face. Our business is also subject to the risks that affect many other companies, such as employment relations, general economic conditions, geopolitical events and international operations. Further, additional risks not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial may in the future materially and adversely affect our business, operations, liquidity and stock price.

Below we provide in supplemental form the material changes to our risk factors that occurred during the past quarter. Our risk factors disclosed in Part I, Item 1A, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, provide additional disclosure for these supplemental risks and are incorporated herein by reference.

Our sales depend on coverage and reimbursement from government and commercial third-party payers, and pricing and reimbursement pressures have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, our profitability.

Sales of our products depend on the availability and extent of coverage and reimbursement from third-party payers, including government healthcare programs and private insurance plans. Governments and private payers continue to pursue initiatives to manage drug utilization and contain costs. Further, pressures on healthcare budgets from the economic downturn and inflation continue and are likely to increase, across the markets we serve. Payers are increasingly focused on costs, which has resulted, and is expected to continue to result, in lower reimbursement rates for our products and/or narrower patient populations for which payers will reimburse. Continued intense public scrutiny of the price of drugs and other healthcare costs, together with payer dynamics, have limited, and are likely to continue to limit, our ability to set or adjust the price of our products based on their value, which can have a material adverse effect on our business. In the United States, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced and/or signed into law to lower drug prices. These include the IRA law that enables the U.S. government to set prices for certain drugs in Medicare, redesigns Medicare Part D benefits to shift a greater proportion of the costs to manufacturers and health plans, and enables the U.S. government to impose penalties if drug prices are increased at a rate faster than inflation (IRA Inflation Penalties). On July 4, 2025, the OBBBA3 was signenacted into law thatand included several changes to Medicare, Medicaid and Affordable Care Act policies, that when implemented, may adversely affect coverage and reimbursement for certain of oour products. On May 12, 2025, the Administration issued the Most-Favored-Nations (MFN) Prescription Drug Pricing Executive Order (MFN EO) aimed at using price benchmarks from comparableother developed countries to set U.S. pricing targets. Subsequently, on July 31, 2025 the Administration sent letters to many pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Amgen (the July MFN Letter) as further described below, outlining voluntary steps that such manufacturers could take to advance actions consistent with elements of the MFN EO. Such actions could reasonably be expected to adversely affect our business. Additional proposals focused on drug pricing continue to be debated, and additional executive orders or regulatory initiatives focused on drug pricing and competition are likely to be adopted and implemented in some form. It remains unclear what further policies and/or actions the Administration will advance with respect to the MFN EO, IRA implementation, sector-specific trade policies, other drug pricing proposals, or other healthcare regulations affecting pharmaceuticals. Further, state government activity has been dynamic, including a number of states enacting new laws prohibiting restrictions on 340B Program use and limiting drug reimbursement under state run Medicaid programs. Such state laws could also eventually be adopted at the federal level.

We are unable to predict which or how many policy, regulatory, administrative or legislative changes may ultimately be, or effectively estimate the consequences to our business if, enacted and implemented. However, to the extent that payer actions further decrease or modify the coverage or reimbursement available for our products, require that we pay increased rebates or shift other costs to us, limit or affect our decisions regarding the pricing of or otherwise reduce the use of our products, such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

476

Changing U.S. federal coverage and reimbursement policies and practices have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, access to, pricing of, and sales of our products

A substantial proportion of our U.S. business relies on reimbursement from federal government healthcare programs and commercial insurance plans regulated by federal and state governments. See Part I, Item 1. BusinessReimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. Our business has been, and will continue to be, affected by legislative actions changing U.S. federal reimbursement policy. For example, the IRA includes provisions requiring that, beginning in 2026, mandatory price setting be introduced in Medicare for certain drugs paid for under Parts B and D, whereby manufacturers must accept a price established by the government or face penalties on all U.S. sales (starting with 10 drugs in 2026, adding 15 in 2027 and 2028, and adding 20 in 2029 and subsequent years such that, by 2031, approximately 100 drugs could be subject to such set prices). The Medicare price setting process for the first 10 drugs subject to Medicare price setting in Part D began in 2023, which includes ENBREL, our product that currently generates considerable revenues. In 2024, CMS set a price for ENBREL under Medicare Part D that is significantly lower than currently applicable, beginning on January 1, 2026, which we expect will negatively impact its profitability in Medicare. See Part I, Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsResults of operationsProduct salesENBREL. In January 2025, CMS announced the next 15 drugs for Medicare price setting that will be applicable beginning on January 1, 2027, which includes Otezla. Dependin In October 2025, CMS set a price, beginning on January 1, 2027, for Otezla under Medicare Part D that is significantly lower than the current price, which we expect will negatively impact its profitability in Medicare. Further, CMS has issued guidance, effective for the 2028 cycle, that allows for the re-setting on f prices for drugs for which it previously set a price. Depending on the growth and success of our medicines, other of our medicines may also be subject to selection by CMS in the next, or in a future, cycle of mandatory Medicare price setting. If other of our medicines are selected by CMS for Medicare price setting, we may be required to accept a price set by the government for Medicare similar tousing the process that was applied to ENBREL and Otezla. On April 15, 2025, the Administration issued an executive order (the April 2025 EO) that, among other directives, directs HHS to work with Congress to align the treatment of small molecule drugs and biologics in the Medicare price setting program under the IRA. It is currently unclear how such modifications would affect the timeframe in which Medicare price setting becomes applicable for selected drugs or biologics. Also under the IRA, Medicare Part D was redesigned to cap beneficiary out-of-pocket costs and, beginning January 1, 2025, Federal reinsurance will be reduced in the catastrophic phase (resulting in a shift and increase of such costs to Part D plans and manufacturers, including by requiring manufacturer discounts on applicable drugs). Further, the IRA inflation penalties allow CMS to collect rebates from manufacturers if price increases outpace inflation. Such rebate obligations began to accrue October 1, 2022 for Medicare Part D and January 1, 2023 for Medicare Part B, but CMS has not yet issued invoices and has some discretion as to when to issue such invoices to manufacturers. We expect that severa. Several of our products will be subject to IRA inflation penalties, and several of our products have have also been on lists that are issued and updated on a quarterly basis by CMS under a related program under which Medicare beneficiaries are charged reduced coinsurance if price increases exceed inflation. The IRAs Medicare price setting and Medicare redesign are likely to have a material adverse effect on our sales, our business and our results of operations, and such impact is expected to increase through the end of the decade and will depend on factors including the extent of our portfolios exposure to Medicare reimbursement, the rate of inflation over time, the number of our products selected for Medicare price setting and the timing of market entry of generic or biosimilar competition. Further, following the enactment of the IRA, the environment remains dynamic, and U.S. policymakers continue to demonstrate interest in health care and drug pricing changes as well as potential changes affecting intellectual property. For example, in April 2024, CMS finalized policy changes that will give Part D plans more flexibility to substitute biosimilars for innovator products on formularies in 2025. Implementation of the OBBBA3 also may impact access to and reimbursement of our products. For example, the Congressional Budget Office has projected significant cuts to federal Medicaid spending over the next decade and an increase in the number of people without health insurance. This would place greater stress on state budgets and hospital finances, and could result in reduced access to medicines, additional pressure to further discount medicines and growth of 340B Program utilization. Additionally, various government agencies have taken actions designed to reduce expenditures on prescription drugs. For example, HHS released a report with drug pricing proposals that seek to promote competition. The April 2025 EO also directs HHS to provide recommendations within 180 days to accelerate the approval of generics, biosimilars, combination products and second-in-class medications, as well as to address Medicaid drug rebates and Medicaid drug payment methodologies, and, within one year, to develop and implement a plan to test a payment model to enable Medicare to obtain pharmaceuticals at lower cost. The MFN EO directs HHS to set MFN price targets, which HHS identified in a press release as the lowest price in an OECD country with a  gross domestic product (GDP) per capita of at least 60% of the U.S. GDP per capita and applicable to brand products that do not currently have generic or biosimilar competition. The MFN EO outlined potential actions if significant progress towards MFN price targets is not made including: proposing a rulemaking plan to impose MFN pricing; considering actions to support importation of drugs in certain circumstances; undertaking enforcement action against anti-competitive practices; considering actions regarding the export of drugs or precursor material; and reviewing and potentially modifying or revoking approvals granted for drugs that are newly determined to be unsafe, ineffective or improperly marketed. The MFN EO also directs the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative to take all necessary and appropriate action to ensure foreign countries are not engaged in any act, policy or practice that may be unreasonable or discriminatory, and directs HHS to facilitate direct-to-consumer purchasing programs at MFN prices. The July MFN Letter calls for drug manufacturers, by September 29, 2025, to voluntarily to: 1) extend MFN pricing to Medicaid; 2) guarantee MFN pricing to Medicaid, Medicare and commercial payers on all newly launched drugs; 3) use future increased revenues from outside the U.S. to lower U.S. drug prices; and 4) participate in direct-to-consumer

48

models to provide MFN pricing for certain drugs. The details of these requests and how they might be

47

operationalized are unclear, but if put into place they could reasonably be expected to adversely affect our business.  Recently, three drug manufacturers announced agreements with the Administration that are reported to fully address the July MFN Letter, and other manufacturers may enter into similar agreements in the future. Separate from the MFN EO and the July MFN Letter, other CMS policy changes and demonstration projects to test new care, delivery and payment models can also significantly affect how drugs, including our products, are covered and reimbursed.

We also face risks related to the reporting of pricing data that affects reimbursement of and discounts provided for our products. U.S. government price reporting regulations are complex and may require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to update certain previously submitted data. If our submitted pricing data are incorrect, we may become subject to substantial fines and penalties or other government enforcement actions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, as a result of restating previously reported price data, we may be required to pay additional rebates and provide additional discounts.

Changing reimbursement and pricing actions in various states have negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, access to, and have affected, and may continue to affect, sales of our products

At the state level, legislation, government actions and ballot initiatives can also affect how our products are covered and reimbursed and/or create additional pressure on our pricing decisions. Existing and proposed state pricing laws, which may move forward more rapidly than similar efforts at the federal level, have added complexity to the pricing of drugs. A number of states have adopted, and many other states are considering, PDABs, drug importation programs, reference pricing schemes and other drug pricing actions, including proposals designed to require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to report to the state proprietary pricing information or provide advance notice of certain price increases.

States are also enacting laws referencing the IRA and seeking to regulate and prohibit restrictions on the 340B Program. For example, following the passage of the IRA, bills have been proposed in multiple states that would apply the drug price caps set by HHS for Medicare to drug prices in an individual state, and such references to IRA price caps have also been included in PDAB legislation. For Medicaid patients, states have established a Medicaid drug spending cap (New York) and implemented a new review and supplemental rebate negotiation process (Massachusetts). Eight states (Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Maryland, Minnesota, Oregon and Washington) have enacted laws that establish PDABs to identify drugs that pose affordability challenges, and four such states include authority for the state PDABs to set upper payment limits on certain drugs for in-state patients, payers and providers. In 2024 and 2025, no fewer than 17 states and nine states, respectively, introduced PDAB legislation, and in 2025 Maryland expanded the scope of its PDAB law to include the commercial market. The eight states with enacted PDAB laws are in various phases of implementation, with Colorados PDAB being the furthest along. The Colorado PDAB deemed three of five drugs unaffordable, including ENBREL, and rulemaking to ein October 2025 the Colorado PDAB established an Upper Payment Limit (UPL) commenced isubstantially lower than the second quarterwholesale acquisition cost of 2025ENBREL that cwould be effective as soon as the first qgenerally applicable to all formulations of ENBREL, effective no earlier than Januarter ofy 1, 20267, and will be reviewed annually. On July 16, 2025, Washington states PDAB selected ENBREL for one of its first affordability reviews. Following the timeline and process established by the state for such affordability review, the manufacturer and the PDAB will undertake a number of required interactions. However, the Washington state PDAB may not establish a UPL for any prescription drug before January 1, 2027. Further, inappropriate expanded utilization of the 340B Program from broadened application of the 340B discounts has had, and is expected to continue to have, a negative impact on the Companys product sales, business and results of operations. Twenty states (Louisiana, Arkansas, West Virginia, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Maryland, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Nebraska, New Mexico, Colorado, Tennessee, Oregon, Vermont, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Rhode Island and Maine) have enacted laws with mandates on manufacturers participating in the 340B Program, and, in 2025, no fewer than 30 states have introduced similar legislation. These bills vary, but typically include provisions restricting a manufacturers ability to direct drugs in 340B channels, recognizing 340B contract pharmacies and a prohibition on requiring the inclusion of 340B claims modifiers. With the OBBBAOB3s reductions to federal Medicaid funding to states, increased pressure is anticipated for providers to find and preserve existing revenue sources at the state level, which may result in increased use of 340B contract pharmacy mandates. In Genesis Health Care, Inc. v. Becerra, the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina issued an order in November 2023 enjoining the Health Resources and Services Administration from enforcing a more restrictive interpretation ofagainst Genesis Health Care as to who qualifies as a patient under the 340B Program, potentially expanding access to 340B discounts for healthcare systems. Since this decision, several courts have rejected arguments that state 340B laws are preempted by the federal 340B statute and have declined to enjoin such laws. These rulings, including decisions in Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, and MarylMaryland, Minnesota and Tennessee, have been accompanied by a growing number of states to pursueing similar legislation.

48

Additionally, in 2024, the FDA authorized Florida to move forward with its importation program proposal, though the state has not yet completed any significant steps towards importation within the two-year authorization window. Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Texas and Vermont have also enacted state importation laws, and some have submitted plans for approval to the FDA. Other states could adopt similar approaches or could pursue different policy changes in a continuing effort to reduce their costs. Further, the April 2025 EO also directs HHS to, within 90 days, streamline and improve the drug importation program to ease the process for states to obtain drug importation approvals. On May 21, 2025, the FDA issued a press release indicating it was taking steps to enhance state importation programs and would offer individual states and

49

tribes the opportunity to submit draft proposals for pre-review and to meet with the agency to obtain initial feedback prior to formally submitting importation proposals. While under federal law biologics remain exempt from such state importation activities, our small molecule products could be impacted by these initiatives.

Ultimately, as with U.S. federal government actions, existing or future state government actions or ballot initiatives may also have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

U.S. commercial payer actions have affected, and may continue to affect, access to and sales of our products

Payers, including healthcare insurers, PBMs, integrated healthcare delivery systems (vertically-integrated organizations built from consolidations of healthcare insurers and PBMs) and group purchasing organizations, are continuing to seek ways to further reduce their costs. With increasing frequency, payers are adopting benefit plan changes that shift a greater proportion of drug costs to patients. Such measures include more limited benefit plan designs, high deductible plans, higher patient co-pay or coinsurance obligations and more significant limitations on patients use of manufacturer commercial co-pay assistance programs. Further, government regulation of payers may affect these trends. Payers, including PBMs, have sought, and continue to seek, price discounts or rebates in connection with the placement of our products on their formularies or those they manage, and to also impose restrictions on access to, or usage of, our products (such as Step Therapy), require that patients receive the payers prior authorization before covering the product, and/or chosen to exclude certain indications for which our products are approved. For example, some payers require physicians to demonstrate or document that the patients for whom Repatha has been prescribed meet their utilization criteria, and these requirements have served to limit patient access to Repatha treatment. In an effort to reduce barriers to access, we reduced the net price of Repatha by providing greater discounts and rebates to payers (including PBMs that administer Medicare Part D prescription drug plans), and in response to a very high percentage of Medicare patients abandoning their Repatha prescriptions rather than paying their co-pay, we introduced a set of new National Drug Codes to make Repatha available at a lower list price. However, affordability of patient out-of-pocket co-pay cost has limited, and, going forward, may in the future limit, patient use. Further, despite these net and list price reductions, some payers have restricted, and may continue to restrict, patient access and may seek further discounts or rebates or take other actions, such as changing formulary coverage for Repatha, that could reduce its sales. These factors have limited, and may continue to limit, patient affordability and use, negatively affecting Repatha sales.

Further, significant consolidation in the health insurance industry has resulted in a few large insurers and PBMs, which places greater pressure on pricing and usage negotiations with biopharmaceutical manufacturers, significantly increasing discount and rebate requirements and limiting patient access and usage. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsConcentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors, and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers, and PBMs has negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business. This high degree of consolidation among insurers, PBMs and other payers, including integrated healthcare delivery systems and/or with specialty or mail-order pharmacies and pharmacy retailers, has increased the negotiating leverage such entities have over us and other biopharmaceutical manufacturers and has resulted in greater price discounts, rebates and service fees realized by those payers from our business. Each of CVS, Express Scripts and United Health Group (among the top six integrated health plans and PBMs) have Rebate Management Organizations that further increase their leverage to negotiate deeper discounts on their behalf and for the benefit of their other customers. Ultimately, additional discounts, rebates, fees, coverage changes, plan changes, restrictions or exclusions imposed by these commercial payers could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. Policy reforms advanced by Congress or, the Administration or that e states that refine the role of PBMs in the U.S. marketplace could have downstream implications or consequences for our business and how we interact with these entities. For example, in September 2024, the Federal Trade Commission brought action against the three largest PBMs alleging anticompetitive and unfair rebating practices. In addition, multiple Congressional Committees have been investigating PBM practices and have also proposed legislation that could increase transparency and reporting of these practices and/or impact rebates and service fees. The results of such inquiries could have an effect on manufacturer interactions with PBMs, resulting in changes to access for certain medicines. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsConcentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors, and consolidation of private payers, such as insurers, and PBMs has negatively affected, and may continue to negatively affect, our business.

49

Our business is also affected by policies implemented by private healthcare entities that process Medicare claims, including Medicare Administrative Contractors. For example, in 2022, several Medicare Administrative Contractors issued notice that TEZSPIRE would be added to their self-administered drug exclusion lists. Although the Medicare Administrative Contractors subsequently removed TEZSPIRE from their exclusion lists, these exclusions, if reintroduced and/or implemented, would result in Medicare beneficiaries with severe asthma losing access to TEZSPIRE coverage under Medicare Part B and potentially also under Medicare Advantage.

50

Government and commercial payer actions outside the United States have affected and will continue to affect access to and sales of our products

Outside the United States, we expect countries will also continue to take actions to reduce their drug expenditures and to reduce intellectual property protections. See Part I, Item 1. BusinessReimbursement, of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024. Pressures to decrease drug expenditures may intensify as governments take actions to address budgets strained by high inflation and weak economic conditions, including in Europe where the effects of the RussiaUkraine conflict have challenged the economies in that region. Further, the EU is currently undergoing a review and revision of its general pharmaceutical legislation that, while full implementation is not expected before 2027, has led to proposals that would reduce intellectual property protection for new products (including potentially shortening the duration of regulatory data exclusivity and orphan drug exclusivity protections), as well as change the reimbursement and regulatory landscape. International reference pricing has been widely used by many countries outside the United States to control costs. International reference pricing policies can change quickly and frequently and may not reflect differences in the burden of disease, indications, market structures or affordability across countries or regions. Other expenditure control practices, including the use of revenue clawbacks, rebates and caps on product sales, are also used in various foreign jurisdictions. In addition, countries may refuse to reimburse, or may restrict the reimbursed population for a product, when their national health technology assessments do not consider a medicine to demonstrate sufficient clinical benefit beyond existing therapies or to meet certain cost effectiveness thresholds. For example, despite the EMAuropean Medicines Agencys approval of Repatha for the treatment of patients with established atherosclerotic disease, prior to 2020, the reimbursement of Repatha in France was limited to a narrower patient population (such as those with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH)) following a national health technology assessment. Many countries decide on reimbursement between potentially competing products through national or regional tenders that often result in one product receiving most, or all of, the sales in that country or region. Failure to obtain coverage and reimbursement for our products, a deterioration in their existing coverage and reimbursement, or a decline in the timeliness or certainty of payment by payers to hospitals and other providers, has negatively affected, and may further negatively affect, the ability or willingness of healthcare providers to prescribe our products for their patients and otherwise negatively affect the use of our products or the prices we realize for them. Such failures and changes have had, and could in the future have, a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

We could be subject to additional tax liabilities, including from an adverse outcome in our ongoing tax dispute with the IRS and other tax examinations, enactment of the OECD minimum corporate tax rate agreement and the adoption and interpretation of new tax legislation including the OBBBA. Such tax liabilities could adversely affect our profitability and results of operations.

We are subject to income and other taxes in the United States and other jurisdictions in which we do business. As a result, our provision for income taxes is derived from a combinaGlobal economic condition of applicable tax rates in the various places we operate. Significant judgment is required for determining our provision for income tax.

One or more of our legal entities file income tax returns in the U.S. federal jurisdiction, various U.S. state jurisdictions and foreign jurisdictions. Our income tax returns are routinely examined by tax authorities in those jurisdictions. Significant disputes can and have arisen with tax authorities involving issues regarding the timing and amount of deductions, the use of tax credits and allocations of income and expenses among varios may negatively affect us tax jurisdictions because of differing interpretations of tax laws, regulations and relevant facts, and such tax authorities (including the IRS) are becoming more aggressive in its audits and are particularly focused on such matters. In 2017, we received an RAR and a modified RAR from the IRS for the years 20102012, proposing sigand may magnificant adjustments that primarily relate to the allocation of profits between cey certain of our entities in the United States and the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico. We disagreed with the proposed adjustments and calculations and pursued resolution withrisks the IRS administrative appeals office but were unable to reach resolution. In July 2021, we filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court to contest two duplicate Statutory Notices of Deficiency (Notices) for the years 20102012 that we received in May and July 2021 which seek to increase our U.S. taxable income for the years 20102012.

In 2020, we received an RAR and a modified RAR from the IRS for the years 20132015, also proposing significant adjustments that primarily relate to the allocation of profits between certain of our entities in the United States and the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico similar to those proposed for the years 20102012. We disagreed with the proposed adjustments and calculatat affect our business.

Our operations and pursued resolution with the IRS appeals office but were unable to reach resolution. In July 2022, we filed a petition in the U.S. Tax Court to contest a Notierformance for the years 20132015 that we previously reported receiving in April 2022 that seeks to increase our U.S. taxable income for the years 20132015 and asserts penalties.

We firmly believe that the IRS positions set forth in the 20102012 and 20132015 Notices are without merit. We arehave been, and may contesting the 20102012 and 20132015 Notices through the judicial process. The cases were consolidated on December 19, 2022. The trial began on November 4, 2024 and concluded on January 17, 2025. The parties filed opening post-trial briefs on June 13, 2025, and the Court held oral argument on July 16, 2025. The parties are scheduled to file post-trial reply briefs in October 2025. The Company expects a decision from the U.S. Tax Court no earlier than 2026.

51

We are currently also under examination ue to be, affected by the IRS for the years 20162018 with respect to issues similar to those for the 2010 through 2015 period. We expect that the IRS will begin its audit of 20192022 in 2025 or early 2026, and we believe that it may seek to continue to audit similar issues related to the allocation of income between the United States and our foreign jurisdictions. In addglobal economic condition, we are under examination by a number of state and foreign tax jurisdictions.

Final resolution of these complex tax matters is not likely within the next 12 months. We s. The econtinue to believe our accrual for income tax liabilities is appropriate based on past experience, interpretations of tax law, application of the tax law to our facts and judgments about potential actions by tax authorities; however, due to the complexity of the provision for income taxes and uncertaiomic downturn resolution of these matters, the uultimate outcome of any tax matters may result in payments substantially greater than amounts accrued and could have a material adverse effect on tng from the results of our operations. See Part 1, Item 2. Managements Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of OperationsResults of Operations, Income Taxes, and Part 1Note 4, Income taxes, to the condensed consolidated financial statements.

Our provision for income taxes and results of operations in the future could be adversely affected by changes to our operating structure, changes in the mix of income and expenses in countries with differing tax rates, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities and changes in applicable tax laws, regulations or administrative interpretations thereof. The 2017 Tax Act is complex anCOVID-19 pandemic precipitated a large volume of regulations and guidance has been issued and could be subject to different interpretations. We could face audit challenges to our application of the 2017 Tax Act.

As previously reported, the OECD reached an agreement to align countries on a minimum corporate tax rate and an expansion of the taxing rights of market countries. As of January 1, 2025, select individual countries, including the United Kingdom, EU member countries, and Singapore, have enacted the global minimum tax agreement. Our legal entities in the countries that have enacted the agreement, along with their direct and indirect subsidiaries, are now subject to a 15% minimum tax rate on adjusted financial statement income. In June 2025, the United States and the other six countries that make up the G7 nations jointly announced that U.S. companies would be exempted from certain minimum taxes relating to the OECD agreement. However, significant details regarding the G7 announcement remain uncertain and individual countries that have enacted the OECD agreement, including countries not within the G7, must amend their local legislation for the G7 announcement to become effective. Additional provisions of the OECD agreement may also come into effect in future years, and the OECD is expected to continue to release additional guidance that may impact the application and interpretation of the agreement that could further increase our tax liabilities. The continued response of other countries, including the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, to the OECD agreement and the G7 announcement remains highly uncertain. The continued enactment of the OECD agreement, either by all OECD participants or unilaterally by individual countries, could result in tax increases or double taxatglobal recession, which was followed by high rates of inflation and action in the United States or foreign jurisdictions.

The OBBBA includes significant provisions related to taxation, such as the permanent extension of certain expiring provisions of the 2017 Tax Act, and modifications to the international tax framework. This legislation has multiple effective dates, with certain provisions effective in 2026 and beyond. The OBBBA is complex and we are awaiting guidance to be issued.

Changes to existing tax law in the United States, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico or other jurisdictions, including the changes and potential changes discussed above, coulds taken by financial result in tax increases where we do business and could have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations.

Our sales and operations are subject to the risks of doing business internationally, including in emerging markets.

As we continue our expansion efforts in emerging markets around the world, through acquisitions and licensing transactions as well as through the development and introduction, both independently and through collaborations such as our collaboration with BeOne, of our products in new markets, we face numerous risks to our business. There is no guarantee that our efforts and strategies to expand sales in emerging markets will succeed. Our international business, including in China and emerging market countries, may be especially vulnerable to periods of global and local political, legal, regulatory and fingulators to raise interest rates. Instability in the financial instability, including issues of geopolitical relations, the imposition of international sanctions in response to certain state actions and/or sovereign debt issues, and management of health policy in response to pressures such as global pandemics. For example, the BIOSECURE Act would prohibit federal contracting with companies that have commercial connections with enumerated biotechnology companies of concern located in certain geographies, including China, has passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, and, if passed by the U.S. Senate asystem, tighter lending standards and signed into law by the Administration, could restrict our ability to contract or collaborate with such biotechnology companies in the future. If relations between the United States and other governments deteriorate, our business and investments in such markets may also be adversely affected. We may also be required to increase our reliance on third-party agents and unfamiliar operations and arrangements, including those previously utilized by companies we partner with or acquire in emerging markets. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsWe must conduct clinical trials in humans before we commercialize and sell any of our product candidates or existing products for new indications. Our expansion efforts in China and emerging markets

52

arounhigher interest rates have added stress that may create add the world are dependent upon the establishment of an environment that is predictable, navigable and supportive of biopharmaceutical innovation, sustained access for our products and predictable pricing controls. China continuitional vulnerabilities to strengthen regulations on in the collection, use and transmission of Chinese human genetic resources, and has expanded regulations on the conduct of biotechnology RD activities in China. For example, between 2020 and 2022, we experienced delays in our applications to the Human Genetic Resources Administration of China that sought approval to conduct clinical trials in China. Further, recent increases in tariffs imposed on certain goods imported into the United States, including inputs relevant to biopharmaceutical manufacturing, have raised our production costs to a limited degree in the first half of 2025, and, going forward, suglobal economy, the effects of which tariffs, together with the impositionmay be of tariffs from agreements the Administration has made with other countries and other potential future tariffs, could more significantly increase our production costs and potentially disrupt the operan extended duration of our supply chain. Additionally, any tariffs imposed directly on the pharmaceutical industry would have the potential to adversely affect our sales. See Global economic conditions may negatively affect us and may magnify certain risks that affect our business. Our inwith higher international operations and business may also be subject to less protective intellectual property or other applicable lawest rates, diverse data privacy and protection requirements, changing tax laws and tariffs, trade restrictions or other barriers designed to protect industry in the home country against foreign competition, far-reaching antibribery and anticorruption laws and regulations and/or evolveficits (including legal and regulatory environments. For example, recent cross-border data transfer compliance requirements in China, as well as a new U.S. Department of Justice final rule on preventing access to Americans bulk sensitive personal data by countries of concern, may also impose additional costs of doing business, including costs associated those associated with localizing operations.

In response to tthe ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine, the U.S. government, numerous state governments, the EU pand other countries in which we conduct business have imposed a wide range of economic sanctions that restrict commerce and business dealings with Russia, certain regions of Ukraine and certain entities and individuals. Additionally, emic), and othe recent armed conflict in the Middle East has caused regional disruptions to economic activity. For a description of the conflicts impact on our third-party contract manufacturing of KRYSTEXXA, see our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsOur efforts to collaborate with or acquire other companies, products, or technology, and to integrate the operations of companies or to support the products or technology we have acquired, r fiscal pressures, governments may not be successful, and may result in unanticipated costs, delays or failures to realize the benefits of unable to sustain the transactions. These conflicts, in addition to other geopolitical tensions, may also precipitate or amplify the other risks described herein, including risks relating to cybersecurity, global economic conditions, clinical trials and supply chains, which could adversely affect our business, operations and financial condition and results.

As we expand internationally, we are subject to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates relative to the U.S. dollar. While we have a program in place that is designed to reduce our exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations through foreign currency hedging arrangements, our hedging efforts do not completely offset the effect of these fluctuations on our revenues and earnir previously high levels of fiscal spendings. Overall, the legal and operational challenges of our international business operations, along with government controls, t. Further, in the challenges of attracting and retaining qualifiUnited personnel and obtaining and/or maintaining necessary regulatory or pricing approvals of our products, may result in material adverse effects on our international product sales, business and results of operations.

Manufacturing difficulties, disruptions or delays could limit supply of our products and limit our product sales.

Manufacturing biologic and small molecule human therapeutic products is difficult, complex and highly regulated. We manufacture many of our commercial products and product candidates internally. In addition, we use third-party contract manufacturers to produce, or assist in the production of, a number of our products, and we currently use contract manufacturers to produce, or assist in the production of, a number of our late-stage product caStates, Congress was not able to come to agreement on extending government fundidates and drug delivery devices. The number of third-party contract manufacturers that we use has increased with our acquisition of Horizon, as Horizon required such contract manufacturers for all of its products. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended Deceng before a September 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1. BusinessManufacturing, Distribution and Raw MaterialsManufacturing; and our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 0, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsOur efforts to collaborate with or acquire other companies, products, or technology, and to integrate the operations of companies or to support the products or technology we have acquired, may not be successful, and may 5 deadline, result in unanticipated costs, delays or failures to realize the benefits of the transactions. Our ability to adequately and timely manufacture and supply our products (and product candidates to support our clinicing in a federal trials) is dependent on the uninterrupted and efficient operation of our facilities and those of our third-party contract manufacturers, which may be affected by:

capacity of manufacturing facilities;

contamination by microorganisms or viruses, or foreign particles from the manufacturing process;

natural or other disasters, including hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanoes or fires;

53

labor government shutdown, andisputes or shortages, including the effects of health emergencies (such as novel viruses or pandemics) or natural disasters;

compliance with regulatory requirements;

changes in forecasts of future demand;

timi government funding and actual number of production runs and production success rates and yields;

updates of manufacturing specifications;

contractual disputes with our suppliers and contract manufacturers;

timing and outcome of product quality testing;

power failures and/or other utility failures;

cyberattacks on supplier systems;

breakdown, failure, substandard performance or improper installation or operation of equipment (including our information technology systems and network-connected control systems or those of our contract manufacturers or third-party service providers);

delays in the ability of the FDA or foreign regulatory agencies to remains at risk of additional disruptions if legislation provide us necessary reviews, inspections and approvals, including as a result of a subsequent extended U.S. federal or other government shutdowns;

tariffs or other trade barriers that increase costs, limit availability, or disrupt the flow of goods; and/or

geopolitical conflicts (such as the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East).

If any of these or other problems affect production in one or more of our facilities or those of our third-party contract manufacturers, or if we do not accurately forecast demand for our products or the amount of our product candidates required in clinical trials, we may be unable to start or increase production in our unaffeing full funding for the fiscal year is not enacted facilities to meet demand. If the efficient manufacture and supply of our products or product candidates is interrupted, we may experience delayed shipments, delays in our clinical trials, supply constraints, stock-outs, adverse event trends, contract disputes and/or recalls of our products. From time to time, we have initiated recalls of certain lots of our products. For example, in July 2014 we initiated a voluntary recall of an Aranesp lot distributed in the EU after particles were detected in a quality control sample following distribution of that lot, and in April 2018 we initiated a precautionary recall of two batches of Vectibix distributed in Switzerland after potential crimping defects were discovered in the metal seals on some product vials. If we are at any time unable to provide an uninterrupted supply of our products to patients, we may lose patients and physicians may elect to prescribe competing therapeutics instead of our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

Our manufacturing processes, those of our third-party contract manufacturers and those of certain of our third-party service providers must undergo regulatory approval processes and are subject to continued review by tn addition, as this budget impasse reportedly involves disagreement over the FDA and other regulatory authorities. It can take longer than five years to build, validate and license another manufacturing plant, and it can take longer than three years to qualify and license a new contract manufacturer or service provider. If we elect or are required to make changes to our manufacturing processes because of new regulatory requirements, new interpretations of existing requirements or other reasons, this could increase our manufacturing costs and result in delayed shipments, delays in our clinical trials, supply constraints, stock-outs, adverse event trends or contract negotiations or disputes. Such manufacturing challenges may also occur if our existing contract manufacturers are unable or unwilling to timely implement such changes, or at all.

We are expanding our manufacturing capabilities to support current and anticipated demand for our products and product candidates. However, recent tariffs on imported equipment, construction materials, and key inputs have increased our costs to a limited extent in the first half of 2025, and, going forward, such tariffs, or other tariffs imposed in the future, could further increase costs, potentially disrupt supply chains, and put at risk the timely and cost-effective execution of these projects. Further, these efforts, often rely on a single or small number of vendors and suppliers, and finding alternatives for such vendors and suppliers may not be feasible or could require significant time and expense due to the specialized natucontinuation of Affordable Care Act premium subsidies, this disagreement could lead to pressure of our facility requirements. In addition, construction or quality assurance challenges at the facilities we are building or expanding, labor

54

n Congreshortages, contractual disputes with our suppliers, negative outcomes from agency officials, or other delays or challenges in operationalizing additional manufacturing capacity could limit our ability to capitalize on demand for our products and product candidates.

In addition, regulatory agencies conduct routine monitoring and inspections of our manufacturing facilities and processes as well as those of our third-party contract manufacturers and service providers. If regulatory authorities determine that we or our third-party contract manufacturers or certain of our third-party service providers have violated regulations, they may mandate corrective actions and/or issue warning letters, or even restrict, suspend or revoke our prior approvals, prohibiting us from manufacturing our products or conducting clinical trials or selling our marketed products, either until we or the affected third-party contract manufacturers or third-party service providers comply, or indefinitely. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsOur current products and products in development cannot be sold without regulatory approval. Such issues may also delay the approval of product candidates we have submitted for regulatory review, even if such product candidates are not directly related to the products, devices or processes at issue with regulators. Because our third-party contract manufacturers and certain of our third-party service providers are subject to the FDA and foreign regulatory authorities, alternative qualified third-party contract manufacturers and third-party service providers may not be available on a timely basis, or at all. If we or our third-party contracts to take further actions to pay for healthcare. Also, the federal government shutdown has disrupted, and manufacturers or third-party service providers cease or interrupt production or if our third-party contract manufacturers and third-party service providers fail to supply materials, products or services to us, we may experience delayed shipments, delays in our clinicy have the potential trials, supply constraints, contract disputes, stock-outs and/or recalls of our products. Additionally, we distribute a substantial volume of our commercial products through our primary distribution centers in Louisville, Kentucky for the United States and in Breda, Netherlands for Europe and much of the rest of the world. We also conduct most of the labeling and packaging of our products distributed in Europe and much of the rest of the world in Breda. Our ability to timely supply products is dependent on the uninterrupted and efficient operato disrupt, certain federal agency operations of our distribution and logistics centers, our third-party logistics providers and our labeling and packaging facility in Breda. Further, we rely on commercial transportation, including air and sea freight, for the distribution of our products to our customers, which has been negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, labor unrest, natural disasters and geopolitical security threats.

Changes in laws or regulat, government contract negotiations with respect to the use and/or presence of certain chemicals in our products or the components used in the research, development, manufacture and/or packaging of our products could also disrupt or restrict our ability to develop, produce or sell our products. For example, the EU, the U.S. Congress, the U.S. Environmental Prote regulatory action Agency, and several U.S. states are considering legislation and/or policies to address the reporting, presence, and/or use, of certain chemicals in certain of the components used in the manufacture or packaging of commercial products, including chemicals known as per- and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS). In 2024, Canada (through Environment and Climate Change Canada) issued a notice requiring reporting on PFAS manufacture, import, and use in Canada. In addition, proposed legislation in several jurisdictions are under consideration to prohibit or otherwise regulate the importation, manufacture, or distribution of goods containing PFAS, and some such proposals do not provide exemptions for drug products, medical devices, their packaging, or the materials used in the research, development, or manufacture of such products or devices. For example, the EU is considering a ban on PFAS in the manufacturing and packaging of pharmaceutical products that could affect pharmaceutical research and development activities and commercial distribution. Some proposals, if enacted without exemptionvities, including delays to the U.S. Customs and Border Protections processing of import clearances for pharmaceutical prroducts, and materials used in their research, development, , and manufacture, or without adequate time to research and develop or otherwise idepotentify alternative materials or suppliers, may cause significant disruptions to our ability to manufacture and supply products to the affected jurisdictions, potentially resulting in a material adverse effect on our business.

There have also been legislative and administrative proposals seeking to incentivize greater drug manufacturing in tal delays to the United States with the stated goal of improving supply reliability in the United States. For example, on August 6, 2020, an Executive Order was issued that was aimed at boosting domestic production of essential medicines, medical countermeasures, and critical inputs titled Executive Order on Ensuring Essential Medicines, Medical Countermeasures, and Critical Inputs are Made in the United States. Additionally, one legislative proposal would have prohibited the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs from purchasing certain drugs that have active pharmaceutical ingredients manufactured outside the United States. While we perform a substantial majority of our commercial manufacturing activities in the United States, including in the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico, and a substantial majority of our clinical manufacturing activities at our facility in Thousand Oaks, California, the passage of such legislation could result in foreign governments enacting retaliatory legislation or regulatory actions, which may have an adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

Global economic conditions may negatively affect us and may magnify certain risks that affect our business.

Our operations aFDAs review of product applications and performance have been, and may continue to be, affected by global economic conditions. The economic downturn resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic precipitated a global recessnew indication, which was followed by high rates of inflation and actions taken by financial regulators to raise interest rates. Instability in the financial system, tighter lending standards and higher interest rates have added stress that may create additional vulnerabilities in the global economy, the effects

55

of which may be of an extended duration. Additionally, with higher interest rates, deficits (including those associated with the pandemic), and other fiscal pressures, governments may be unable to sustain their previously high levels of fiscal spending.  filings. Further, in the United States, although Congress has approved measures to fund the government through September 2025, the federal government continues to be at risk of a shutdown if legislation providing funding for the subsequent fiscal year is not passed as a result of political divisions in Congse and other financial press and an impasse on budgetary and spending matters. Consequently, these and other financial pressures haures have caused, and may continue to cause, government or other third-party payers to more aggressively seek cost containment measures in healthcare and other settings. See Our sales depend on coverage and reimbursement from government and commercial third-party payers, and pricing and reimbursement pressures have affected, and are likely to continue to affect, our profitability. As a result of global economic conditions, some third-party payers may delay or be unable to satisfy their reimbursement obligations. Job losses or other economic hardships (including inflation) may also affect patients ability to afford healthcare as a result of increased co-pay or deductible obligations, greater cost sensitivity to existing co-pay or deductible obligations, lost healthcare insurance coverage or for other reasons. We believe such conditions have led and could continue to lead to reduced demand for our products, which could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. The cumulative effects of inflationary pressures, an uncertain trade environment with escalating and

50

rapidly-changing tariffs, and the effects from the armed conflict in Ukraine (including the effects of the sanctions that were implemented in response to the conflict and the resulting impacts on the commodity market and supply chains) and the Middle East have also increased our operating expenses and may continue to affect our operating expenses. Our operational costs, including the cost of energy, materials, labor, distribution and our other operational and facilities costs are subject to market conditions and are being adversely affected by inflationary pressures. Inflationary pressure has increased, potentially due, in part, to newly imposed tariffs and retaliatory trade actions. Although we monitor our distributors, customers and suppliers financial condition and their liquidity to mitigate our business risks, some of our distributors, customers and suppliers may become insolvent, which could have a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations. A significant worsening of global economic conditions could precipitate or materially amplify the other risks described herein. On April 2, 2025, the Administration issued an executive order (the April 2025 Tariff EO) imposing a universal 10% tariff on all imported goods, with certain exceptions including pharmaceuticals. The April 2025 Tariff EO imposed additional higher tariffs on approximately 60 countries with which the United States has trade deficits. However, on April 9, 2025 the Administration temporarily placed the country-specific tariffs on hold for 90 days, except the tariff on goods imported from China, which was subsequently raised to 145%. Shortly after the April 2025 Tariff EO, China announced 34% retaliatory tariffs that were subsequently increased to 125% on goods imported from the United States. The EU also announced 25% retaliatory tariffs on certain goods imported from the United States, excluding pharmaceuticals, which was subsequently paused for 90 days in response to the Administrations pause on country-specific tariffs. While the April 2025 Tariff EO exempts pharmaceuticals, the universal 10% tariff and any foreign retaliatory tariffs will increase certain of our costs, including the materials we use to manufacture our products as well as to conduct our research and development activities, such as delivery devices, consumable supplies and certain other laboratory materials, and the tariffs imposed by China may negatively affect our business in that country. The Administration has since suspended Chinas country-specific rate until August 12, 2025 and suspended Mexicos country-specific rate until October 30, 2025. In July 2025, preliminary tariff agreements have been announced for countries such as Vietnam, Japan, the United Kingdom, the EU and South Korea. In addition, in late July, the the Administration signed executive orders that raised the tariffs on imports from Brazil and Canada to 50% and 35%, respectively (the Brazil and Canada Tariff EOs), and modifior modified the country-specific tariffs for more than 60 countries that will becoame effective on August 7, 2025 (the Modified Country-SpecificJuly Tariff EO, together with the Brazil and Canada Tariff EOss). On August 21, 2025, the July Tariff EOs). The Administration has aalso statannounced that it will impose an additional penalty tariff of an unspecified amoureached an agreement on top of with the 25% tariff EU on imports from India enumerated in the Modified Country-Specific Tariff EO. Certain details of such preliminary agreements, the July Tariff EOs and the potentiala trade framework that establishes a baseline 15% tariffs on India are not yet available, and wemost EU goods, will assess their potential effects when such detailsth a specific exemption for generic pharmaceuticals, become availableginning on September 1, 2025. In April 2025, the Administration also initiated an investigation under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 of the importation of pharmaceuticals, pharmaceutical ingredients and their derivative products, which may lead to the imposition of a sector-specific tariff on such products. In July 2025, the Administration stated the intention that such tariff rate could be up to 200% and could be effective in 12 to 18 months following such tariffs finalization. Further details about such potential tariff on pharmaceuticals remain uncertain. Depending on the scope of any final Section 232 tariff on the pharmaceuticals, it could apply not only to finished pharmaceutical products but also to active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs), and key starting and upstream materials, potentially increasing our manufacturing and development costs. As such, a Section 232 tariff on pharmaceuticals could significantly increase our costs, particularly for our products that rely on globally distributed manufacturing, transportation or sourcing networks. Addition On September 25, 2025, it was reported that the Administration would impose a 100% tariff on all branded or patented pharmaceutical products unless the manufacturer is in the process of building a manufacturing plant in the United States. Details regarding the scope, timing and implementation of this proposal remain uncertain. Subsequently, ifthe Administration indicated these pharmaceutical tariffs were paused while the cy negotiate with companies on MFN pricing. Additionally, if the current tariff exemptions applicable to pharmaceutical products are revoked, our product sales and research and development activities may also be adversely affected. Further, the administrative requirements of tariffs across global trade could also slow and/or delay the processing and delivery of products and materials in supply chains. On October 24, 2025, the Administration initiated, under the Trade Act of 1974, a Section 301 investigation of Chinas implementation of the Economic and Trade Agreement between the U.S. and Chinese governments. This investigation, and any other 301 investigations initiated, may result in additional tariffs on imported goods from China and any other foreign markets subsequently investigated, respectively, potentially including pharmaceutical products and other goods that Amgen requires for the manufacture of our products. If subject to Section 301 tariffs, China, and other affected foreign governments, may retaliate against such tariffs by imposing tariffs of their own on U.S.-made goods. Given the many uncertainties and variables, it is currently unclear the extent, and degree, to which existing and future tariffs will disrupt and adversely affect our business activities (including product sales, and conduct of clinical trial and research and development activities), and the global economic environment, and/or amplify the other risks described herein. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2024, Part I, Item 1A. Risk FactorsWe may not be able to access the capital and credit markets on terms that are favorable to us, or at all.

56

We maintain a significant portfolio of investments on our consolidated balance sheets. In the recent past, the global COVID-19 pandemic and interest rate increases have led to disruption and volatility in the global capital markets. We have certain assets, including equity investments, that are exposed to market fluctuations that could, in a sustained or recurrent series of market disruptions, result in impairments. The value of our investments may also be adversely affected by interest rate fluctuations, inflation, downgrades in credit ratings, illiquidity in the capital markets, geopolitical events and other factors that may result in other-than-temporary declines in the value of our investments. Any of those events could cause us to record impairment charges with respect to our investment portfolio or to realize losses on sales of investments. We also maintain a majority of our cash and cash equivalents in accounts with major multi-national financial institutions, and our deposits at these

51

institutions exceed insured limits. Market conditions can adversely affect the viability of these institutions. In the event of failure of any of the financial institutions where we maintain our cash and cash equivalents, there can be no assurance that we would be able to access uninsured funds in a timely manner or at all. Inability to access, or a delay in accessing these funds, could adversely affect our business and financial position.

57

52