Bioventus shareholder litigation On January 12, 2023, the Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North Carolina (the “Court”), Ciarciello v. Bioventus Inc., No. 1:23– cv – 00032-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.). The complaint asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and generally alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding its rebate practices, its business and financial prospects, and the sufficiency of internal controls regarding financial reporting. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount. On April 12, 2023, the Court appointed Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System as lead plaintiff. The plaintiff’s amended consolidated complaint was filed with the Court on June 12, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising a number of legal and factual deficiencies with the amended consolidated complaint. In response to the defendants’ motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 31, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 21, 2023, which the Court granted in part and denied in part on November 6, 2023. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s Securities Act claims, but allowed the plaintiff’s Exchange Act claims to proceed into discovery. On July 15, 2024, a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the “Settlement Agreement”) by and between the lead plaintiff and the defendants was filed with the Court, and the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on August 13, 2024. The Court entered judgment on December 18, 2024, granting final approval of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and dismissing all claims against the defendants, including the Company. The parties settled without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by any party. The settlement amount of $15.3 million, together with interest earned thereon, was paid in 2024 by the defendants and/or the defendant’s insurers. On October 4, 2023, certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers were named as defendants in a derivative shareholder lawsuit, (in which the Company is a nominal defendant), filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Grogan, on behalf of Bioventus Inc., v. Reali, et al., No. 1:23-CV-01099-RGA (D. Del.). The complaint asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties and related state law claims, and a claim for contribution, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On January 12, 2024, the Court agreed to stay this case pending resolution of the Ciarciello case. 35 Table of Contents On February 9, 2024, another plaintiff filed a derivative shareholder lawsuit against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers, (in which the Company is a nominal defendant), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Sanderson, on behalf of Bioventus Inc., v. Reali, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00180-RGA (D. Del.). Like the Grogan case, this case asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties and related state law claims, and a claim for contribution, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On May 1, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the Sanderson and Grogan derivative matters and stay them on terms similar to those entered in the Grogan case. On May 2, 2024, the Court granted the stipulation and ordered the consolidation of the Sanderson and Grogan cases, captioned In re Bioventus Inc. Derivative Litigation, No.: 1:23-cv-01099-RGA (D. Del.). The Court also stayed the consolidated case. Following resolution of the Ciarciello case, on December 30, 2024, the plaintiffs in the consolidated case filed an amended complaint asserting the same claims as in the Grogan case against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers. On January 6, 2025, the Court entered a scheduling order, under which the defendants had until March 3, 2025 to file a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On February 21, 2025, the parties submitted a joint stipulation to stay the proceedings to allow the parties time to negotiate a settlement. On April 22, 2025, June 23, 2025, October 24, 2025, December 23, 2025, February 3, 2026, and April 1, 2026, the parties submitted status updates requesting more time to continue their settlement discussions. On July 17, 2026, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement-in-principal and would submit a further status report by August 31, 2026, advising the Court of the status of their negotiations regarding attorney’s fees. The settlement is limited to implementation by the Company of certain corporate governance reforms and the Company does not presently expect that the attorney fee awards will be material. On July 31, 2024, another plaintiff filed a derivative complaint against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors, (in which the Company is a nominal defendant), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Vince, on behalf of Bioventus Inc. v. Reali et. al., No. 1:24-cv-00639-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.). Like the Grogan case, the Vince case asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, contribution, and waste and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On November 11, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the Vince case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, pursuant to the forum selection clause in Bioventus’s certificate of incorporation. On January 14, 2025, the Court granted the motion and transferred the Vince case to the District of Delaware. On February 14, 2025, the plaintiff requested voluntary dismissal of the Vince case without prejudice and the Court granted the request that same day. On February 20, 2025, plaintiff Vince refiled a derivative complaint against certain of Bioventus’ current and former officers and directors, (in which the Company is a nominal defendant), in the Delaware Chancery Court, captioned Vince, on behalf of Bioventus Inc. v. Reali et al., No. 2025-0192-LWW (Del. Ch.). Like the prior complaint, which he voluntarily dismissed, Vince asserts breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, contribution, and waste, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On March 24, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, or in the alternative, to stay the case. On February 26, 2025, another plaintiff filed a derivative complaint against certain of Bioventus’s current and former officers and directors, (in which the Company is a nominal defendant), in the Delaware Court of Chancery, captioned Bouchereau, on behalf of Bioventus Inc. v. Reali et al., No. 2025-0214-BWD (Del. Ch.). The complaint is nearly identical to the Vince complaint and asserts breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, contribution, and waste, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On April 2, 2026, the parties filed a stipulation to consolidate the Vince and Bouchereau derivative matters, which the Court granted that same day and captioned the consolidated action, In re Bioventus Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2025-0192-LWW. On July 17, 2026, the parties informed the Court that they had reached a settlement-in-principal, together with the plaintiffs in In re Bioventus Inc. Derivative Litigation, No.: 1:23-cv-01099-RGA (D. Del.), and would submit a further status report by August 31, 2026, advising the Court of the status of their negotiations regarding attorney’s fees. The settlement is limited to implementation by the Company of certain corporate governance reforms and the Company does not presently expect that the attorney fee awards will be material. On March 6, 2025, another plaintiff filed a derivative complaint against certain of Bioventus’s current and former officers and directors, (in which the Company is a nominal defendant), in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, captioned Hyung v. Reali et al., No. 1:25-cv-00177-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.). Like the other derivative cases, the Hyung case asserts violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, contribution, breaches of fiduciary duties, aiding and abetting, gross mismanagement, waste, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On May 13, 2025, the defendants filed a motion to transfer the Hyung case to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, pursuant to the forum selection clause in Bioventus’s certificate of incorporation, or in the alternative, to dismiss the case. On July 1, 2025, the Court granted the motion to transfer and transferred the Hyung case to the District of Delaware. The plaintiff subsequently filed a notice of appeal of that order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on July 16, 2025. On July 25, 2025, the plaintiff filed a joint stipulation to voluntarily dismiss the appeal. On July 8, 2025, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the District of Delaware, captioned Hyung v. Reali, et. al., No. 1:25-cv-00806-RGA (D. Del.). 36 Table of Contents The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Hyung case on October 10, 2025. On May 8, 2026, the Court granted the motion to dismiss and dismissed the Hyung case without prejudice. On June 1, 2026, plaintiff Hyung refiled a derivative complaint against certain of Bioventus’ current and former officers and directors, (in which the Company is a nominal defendant), in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, captioned Hyung v. Reali, et. al., No. 1:26-cv-00635-JCG (D. Del.). Like the prior complaint, which was dismissed, Hyung asserts breaches of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, mismanagement, and waste, and generally alleges the same purported misconduct as alleged in the Ciarciello case. On July 21, 2026, the defendants filed a motion to stay the case or, in the alternative, to dismiss the complaint. That motion is pending. The Company believes the claims alleged in the above actions, including the pending derivative matters, lack merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Except as described above, the outcomes of these matters are not presently determinable, and any loss is neither probable nor reasonably estimable.