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 management’s assumptions. These statements are not guarantees of future performance, and they 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, 2021, 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. These payers are increasingly focused on costs, which have resulted, and are expected to continue to result, in lower reimbursement rates for our products or narrower populations for whom 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, particularly over the past few years, a number of legislative and regulatory proposals have been introduced to attempt to lower drug prices. These include proposals that would enable the U.S. government to negotiate drug prices directly, limit drug reimbursement in Medicare and/or the commercial market based on reference prices, impose penalties if drug prices are increased at a rate faster than inflation or permit importation of drugs from Canada. Additional proposals would require a rebate to the government for any price increase in excess of the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers and/or to shift some of the costs of these Medicare Part D reforms to manufacturers to offset the costs. Certain proposals focused on drug pricing have been adopted, and additional proposals are likely to be adopted and implemented in some form.

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

A substantial portion 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. Business—Reimbursement of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. Our business has been and will continue to be affected by legislative actions changing U.S. federal reimbursement policy. Congress has focused on drug pricing reforms and oversight since 2018, and this activity is still ongoing and has intensified. Since 2019, a number of Congressional committees debated drug pricing reform proposals, and in 2020, Amgen participated in House Oversight and Reform Committee hearings on drug pricing practices. In 2019, the Senate Finance Committee advanced a bill that would, among other things, penalize pharmaceutical manufacturers for raising prices on drugs covered by Medicare Parts B and/or D faster than the rate of inflation, cap out-of-pocket expenses for Medicare Part D beneficiaries and require higher or additional manufacturer discounts in Medicare Part D. Additionally, in late 2019, a drug-pricing bill, H.R. 3, passed the House of Representatives and included provisions that, among other things, enabled direct price negotiations by the federal government on certain drugs, (with the maximum price paid by Medicare capped by prices derived from an international index), penalized failures to reach agreement with the government and required that manufacturers offer these negotiated prices to other payers. Provisions from H.R. 3 have

been incorporated and adapted into other proposed legislation, including the most recent reconciliation bill released by the Senate in July 2022, which included penalties if drug price benchmarks rise faster than inflation, Medicare price setting 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), and Part D redesign including a cap on beneficiary spending and a new manufacturer discount program. This framework remains in discussion with policymakers in Congress and the Administration. There are other outstanding proposals that, if enacted and implemented, in whole or in part, could also affect access to and sales of our products, including, but not limited to, federal and various state proposals to allow importation of prescription medications from Canada or other countries. See —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. In July 2021, the Administration issued an Executive Order designed to address anticompetitive behavior across multiple sectors, and for the healthcare sector, called for, among other things, the FDA to work with states and Indian tribes to develop prescription drug importation programs, more scrutiny of anticompetitive activity by the FTC, emphasized the need for actions to allow for greater competition from generics and biosimilars, and included a process and timeline for federal agencies to deliver to the Administration ideas that address drug pricing. Subsequently, in September 2021, HHS released a report that presented guiding principles for the Administration’s drug pricing proposals, including changes to promote competition throughout the prescription drug industry, highlighting potential legislative policies that Congress could pursue (including drug price negotiation in Medicare Parts B and D, making those negotiated prices available to commercial plans and legislation to speed the entry of biosimilar and generic drugs) and examples of potential administrative tools available to the HHS (including testing various models and enhanced focus of the FTC and the USPTO to address impediments to generic drug and biosimilar competition). Also, in response to the July 2021 Executive Order, the FDA sent a letter to the USPTO describing ways to strengthen coordination between the two agencies, offering training to help identify prior art and seeking USPTO’s views on practices that extend market exclusivities, whether pharmaceutical patent examiners need additional resources, and the effect of post-grant challenges at the PTAB on drug patents. In its reply to the FDA, on July 6, 2022, the USPTO affirmed its interest in coordinating with the FDA and outlined specific initiatives, including enhancing procedures for obtaining patents and easing the process for challenging issued patents before the PTAB.

Legislation enacted in 2021 also contained drug pricing reforms. For example, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act includes a provision requiring manufacturers to provide refunds, beginning in 2023, to the government for discarded amounts of certain drugs (including certain Amgen products) from single use containers under Medicare Part B, and CMS recently released proposed regulations to implement this requirement. Also, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 includes a provision that increases the Medicaid rebate liability, beginning in 2024, by no longer capping Medicaid rebates at 100% of the Average Manufacturer Price for certain medicines that raise prices in excess of inflation. The implementation of a final rule issued by HHS that revises regulations under the federal antikickback statute to encourage PBMs to use rebates received from biopharmaceutical manufacturers to reduce patient cost-sharing at the point of sale under Medicare Part D has been delayed to January 1, 2027. However, the future of this rule remains uncertain because, among other issues, it is subject to litigation and because a permanent repeal is being considered in other legislation.

Our business has been, and is expected to continue to be, affected by changes in U.S. federal reimbursement policy resulting from federal regulations and federal demonstration projects. Over the past several years, federal agencies, including the CMS, announced a number of recommendations, policies, proposals and demonstration projects addressing drug pricing. The Administration has also developed and sought to advance a range of policy proposals that could affect U.S. federal reimbursement policy for drugs and biologics, including changes to Medicare Parts B and D. For example, in 2020, in response to an Executive Order, HHS released a rule to allow states to potentially enable the importation of certain drugs from Canada. This rule is in litigation, but should such litigation be unsuccessful, it could allow for the importation of Canadian versions of certain of Amgen’s products (including Otezla), that could have a material adverse effect on Amgen’s business. Also in response to an Executive Order, CMS released an interim final rule to implement the MFN pricing approach aimed at setting the reimbursement rate for 50 Medicare Part B drugs (including our products, such as Prolia, XGEVA, KYPROLIS, Neulasta, Nplate, EPOGEN and Aranesp) equal to the lowest adjusted price in 22 OECD nations for these drugs. In December 2021, subsequent to challenges, including procedural defects, CMS announced it was withdrawing the MFN rule. Notwithstanding the withdrawal of the rule, the MFN rule’s approach to drug pricing and other similar approaches remain of interest to policymakers. In connection with its withdrawal of the MFN rule, CMS noted that it will “… explore all options to incorporate value into payments for Medicare Part B drugs, improve beneficiaries’ access to evidence-based care, and reduce drug spending for consumers and throughout the health care system.” Further, we expect continued significant focus on healthcare and similar drug pricing proposals for the foreseeable future, including proposals under which the government would set drug prices or limit drug reimbursement. In the second quarter of 2022, several Medicare Administrative Contractors issued notice, in contravention of TEZSPIRE’s FDA approved labeling, that TEZSPIRE would be added to their “self-administered drug” exclusion lists. While the effective date for adding TEZSPIRE to the exclusion list has been deferred until further notice, this exclusion, if implemented, would result in Medicare beneficiaries with severe asthma losing access to TEZSPIRE coverage under Medicare Part B and potentially also under Medicare Advantage.

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. For example, we believe that CMS’s Oncology Care Model demonstration (which has, beginning in 2016, provided participating physician practices with performance-based financial incentives that aim to manage or reduce Medicare costs without negatively affecting the efficacy of care) reduced utilization of certain of our oncology products by participating physician practices. While the Oncology Care Model demonstration ended on June 30, 2022, CMS announced a new oncology model (the Enhancing Oncology Model) that will run for five years (from July 2023 through June 2028) that builds on this prior demonstration program. Further, HHS’s September 2021 comprehensive plan to address drug pricing included potential future mandatory models that link payment for prescription drugs and biologics to factors such as: improved patient outcomes, reductions in health disparities, patient affordability and lower overall costs; bundled payment models; total cost of care models; models in which Medicare Part B savings from utilization of biosimilars, generics, or other high-value products are shared between prescribing providers and the government; additional Medicare Part D cost-sharing support for biosimilars and generics; and potential expansion of the Part D Senior Savings Model to additional classes of drugs. CMS also recently finalized a national Medicare coverage determination for certain Alzheimer’s disease medications that received accelerated FDA approvals that limits coverage to only patients in qualifying clinical trials, thereby suggesting that accelerated regulatory approval does not necessarily result in full Medicare coverage. In this dynamic environment, particularly in light of the pressures on healthcare budgets as a result of the pandemic, we are unable to predict which or how many federal policy, legislative, regulatory, executive or administrative changes may ultimately be, or effectively estimate the consequences to our business if, enacted and implemented. However, to the extent that these or other federal government initiatives 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 U.S. products, or limit our ability to offer co-pay assistance to commercial patients, such actions could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

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. The prior Administration finalized a rule (the implementation of which has been delayed by the current Administration) mandating price and cost-sharing transparency for almost all health plans and insurers in the individual and group commercial markets. Further, the current Administration finalized transparency provisions required under the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 for health plans and insurer reporting of certain drug pricing information by December 27, 2022, and each June thereafter, resulting in a biennial public report highlighting drug pricing trends and the impact of prescription drug costs on premiums and out-of-pocket costs. It is unclear how group health plans and health insurers may respond.

—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, government actions or ballot initiatives can also affect how our products are covered and reimbursed and/or create additional pressure on our pricing decisions. A number of states have adopted, and many other states are considering, drug importation programs or other new pricing actions, including proposals designed to require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to publicly report proprietary pricing information, limit price increases or place a maximum price ceiling or cap on biopharmaceutical products. Existing and proposed state pricing laws have added complexity to the pricing of drugs and may already be affecting industry pricing decisions. For example, a California law, the constitutionality of which is currently being challenged, purports to require biopharmaceutical manufacturers to notify health insurers and government health plans at least 60 days before scheduled prescription drug price increases that exceed certain thresholds. Similar laws exist in Oregon and Washington. States are also seeking to change the way they pay for drugs for patients covered by state programs. California adopted a 2020–21 budget that incorporates international pricing into Medicaid supplemental rebate negotiations and allows its Medicaid program to seek federal approval to extend supplemental rebates to non-Medicaid populations. New York has established a Medicaid drug spending cap, and Massachusetts implemented a new review and supplemental rebate negotiation process. Other states may consider implementing similar policies and procedures as they face budget deficits from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, Colorado, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, New Mexico and Vermont have enacted laws, and several other states have proposed bills, to implement importation of drugs from Canada. The FDA recently met with representatives from Colorado, Florida, Maine and New Mexico to discuss those states’ proposed importation programs, and the FDA may be working towards approving such plans. Other states could adopt similar approaches or could pursue different policy changes in a continuing effort to reduce their costs. 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, increasingly seek ways to 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 copay or coinsurance obligations and more significant limitations on patients’ use of manufacturer commercial copay assistance programs. Further, government regulation of payers may affect these trends. For example, CMS finalized a policy in May 2020 (for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2021, which remains standing policy for 2022) that has caused commercial payers to more widely adopt copay accumulator adjustment programs. Payers 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, particularly in treatment areas in which the payer has taken the position that multiple branded products are therapeutically comparable. Payers also control costs by imposing restrictions on access to or usage of our products, such as Step Therapy, or requiring that patients receive the payer’s prior authorization before covering the product or that patients use a mail-order pharmacy or a limited network of payer fully-owned mail-order or specialty pharmacies. Payers have also chosen to exclude certain indications for which our products are approved or chosen to exclude coverage entirely. For example, some payers require physicians to demonstrate or document that the patients for whom Repatha has been prescribed meet payer utilization management criteria, and these requirements have served to limit and may continue 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. However, affordability of patient out-of-pocket co-pay cost has limited and may continue to limit patient use. For example, in late 2018 and early 2019, 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 in an attempt to address affordability for patients, particularly those on Medicare, and on December 31, 2019, we discontinued the higher list price option for Repatha. Despite these net and list price reductions, some payers have restricted and may continue to restrict patient access, and have changed and may continue to change formulary coverage for Repatha, and they may seek further discounts or rebates or take other actions that could reduce our sales of Repatha. These factors have served to limit and may continue to limit patient affordability and use, and negatively affect 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. For example, in the United States, as of the beginning of 2021, the top five integrated health plans and PBMs controlled about 85% of all pharmacy prescriptions. The consolidation among insurers, PBMs and other payers, including through 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. In 2019, 2020 and 2021, CVS, Express Scripts and United Health Group, respectively, each created Rebate Management Organizations that further increase their respective leverage to negotiate deeper discounts. 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 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, on June 7, 2022, the FTC launched an inquiry into the business practices of PBMs, and the results of such inquiry could have an effect on manufacturer interactions with PBMs, resulting in changes to access to certain medicines. See our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021, Part I, Item 1A. Risk Factors—Concentration of sales at certain of our wholesaler distributors and at one free-standing dialysis clinic business and consolidation of private payers may negatively affect our business.

—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. See Part I, Item 1. Business—Reimbursement of our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021. IRP has been widely used by many countries outside the United States to control costs based on an external benchmark of a product’s price in other countries. IRP policies can change quickly and frequently and may not reflect differences in the burden of disease, indications, market structures, or affordability differences across countries or regions. Other expenditure control practices, including but not limited to the use of revenue clawbacks, rebates and percentage caps on price increases, are used in various foreign jurisdictions as well. 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 EMA’s approval of Repatha for the treatment of patients with established atherosclerotic disease, the reimbursement for Repatha in France prior to

2020 was limited to a narrower patient population (such as those with homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH)) following a national health technology assessment, which had limited our efforts in France to expand Repatha access to the broader patient population covered by the approved label. Some 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 physicians 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 changes have had, and could in the future have, a material adverse effect on our product sales, business and results of operations.

The adoption and interpretation of new tax legislation or exposure to additional tax liabilities could affect our profitability.

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 combination 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 certain 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 various 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 their audits and are particularly focused on such matters. In 2017, we received an RAR and a modified RAR from the IRS for the years 2010–2012, 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. We disagreed with the proposed adjustments and calculations and pursued resolution with 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 Notices for the years 2010–2012 that we received in May and July 2021 which seek to increase our U.S. taxable income for the years 2010–2012.

In 2020, we received an RAR and a modified RAR from the IRS for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015, 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 2010–2012. We disagreed with the proposed adjustments and calculations 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 Notice for the years 2013–2015 that we previously reported receiving in April 2022 that seeks to increase our U.S. taxable income for the years 2013–2015 and asserts penalties.

We firmly believe that the IRS positions set forth in the 2010–2012 and 2013–2015 Notices are without merit. We are contesting the 2010–2012 and 2013–2015 Notices through the judicial process, and we will seek consolidation of the two periods into one case in the U.S. Tax Court.

We are currently also under examination by the IRS for the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 with respect to issues similar to those for the 2010 through 2015 period. In addition, we are under examination by a number of state and foreign tax jurisdictions.

Final resolution of these complex matters is not likely within the next 12 months. We continue 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 uncertain resolution of these matters, the ultimate outcome of any tax matters may result in payments substantially greater than amounts accrued and could have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations.

See Part I, Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Results of Operations, Income Taxes, and Part I—Note 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 and 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. The Administration proposed and Congress is considering a variety of potentially significant changes to existing tax law. These changes, or others, could substantially increase taxes we pay to the U.S. government. Further, the OECD recently reached an agreement to align countries on a minimum corporate tax rate and an expansion of the taxing rights of market countries. If enacted, either by all OECD participants or unilaterally by individual countries, this agreement could result in tax increases in both the United States and

foreign jurisdictions.

The U.S. Treasury recently released final foreign tax credit regulations that eliminate U.S. creditability of the Puerto Rico Excise Tax beginning 2023, which would increase our U.S. tax liability. However, the U.S. territory of Puerto Rico recently enacted Act 52-2022, which provides for an alternate fixed tax rate on industrial development income that is expected to be creditable under U.S. law. As part of this new law, eligible businesses would be subject to incremental income and withholding taxes in lieu of payment of the Puerto Rico Excise Tax. In order to qualify for the alternative fixed tax rate, we must amend our current tax grant with the Puerto Rico government by December 31, 2022. Once we qualify for this alternative fixed tax rate, which we expect to occur as of January 1, 2023, our tax expense will increase. While we expect these taxes to be partially offset by U.S. foreign tax credits, the U.S. Treasury has not yet issued guidance on whether the alternative fixed tax rate will be creditable under U.S. law.

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, could result in tax increases where we do business and could have a material adverse effect on the results of our operations.

Our 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 result in unanticipated costs, delays or failures to realize the benefits of the transactions.

We seek innovation through significant investment in both internal R&D and external transactions, including collaborations, partnerships, alliances, licenses, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions (collectively, acquisition activity). Acquisition activities may be subject to regulatory approvals or other requirements that are not within our control. There can be no assurance that such regulatory or other approvals will be obtained or that all closing conditions required in connection with our acquisition activities will be satisfied or waived, which could result in us being unable to complete the planned acquisition activities. In addition, antitrust scrutiny by regulatory agencies and changes to regulatory approval process in the U.S. and foreign jurisdictions may cause approvals to take longer than anticipated to obtain, not be obtained at all, or contain burdensome conditions, which may jeopardize, delay or reduce the anticipated benefits of acquisitions to us and could impede the execution of our business strategy.

Acquisition activities are complex, time consuming and expensive and may result in unanticipated costs, delays or other operational or financial problems related to integrating the acquired company and business with our company, which may divert our management’s attention from other business issues and opportunities and restrict the full realization of the anticipated benefits of such transactions within the expected timeframe or at all. We may pay substantial amounts of cash, incur debt or issue equity securities to pay for acquisition activities, which could adversely affect our liquidity or result in dilution to our stockholders, respectively. Further, failures or difficulties in integrating or retaining new personnel or in integrating the operations of the businesses, products or assets we acquire (including related technology, commercial operations, compliance programs, manufacturing, distribution and general business operations and procedures) may affect our ability to realize the benefits of the transaction and grow our business and may result in us incurring asset impairment or restructuring charges. These and other challenges may arise in connection with our proposed acquisition of ChemoCentryx, in addition to our acquisitions of Otezla, Five Prime, Teneobio and/or our collaborations with BeiGene and Kyowa Kirin Co., Ltd., or with other acquisition activities, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and stock price.

During the three months ended June 30, 2022, we had one outstanding stock repurchase program, under which the repurchase activity was as follows:

(1) As part of the stock repurchase program, the Company entered into ASR agreements with three third-party financial institutions (Dealers) in February 2022. Under the ASR agreements, the Company made payments in an aggregate amount of $6.0 billion to the Dealers and received and retired an initial 23,258,997 shares of common stock. Approximately $0.9 billion of stock was held back by the Dealers pending final settlement of the ASR agreement, which will be based on the volume-weighted average stock price of the Company’s common stock during the term of the ASR agreements, less a discount and subject to adjustments pursuant to the terms and conditions of the ASR agreements. At settlement, which is scheduled to occur in the third quarter of 2022, the Dealers may be required to deliver additional shares of common stock to the Company, or under certain circumstances, the Company may be required to deliver shares of common stock or to make a cash payment, at its election, to the Dealers.