The Company is involved in various legal proceedings, including product liability and environmental matters of a nature considered normal to its business (see Note 5 for a discussion of environmental matters). It is the Company's policy to accrue for amounts related to these legal matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and an amount is reasonably estimable.
    The Company has been named as a defendant in numerous legal actions relating to the diet drugs Redux or Pondimin, which the Company estimated were used in the United States, prior to their 1997 voluntary market withdrawal, by approximately 5.8 million people. These actions allege, among other things, that the use of Redux and/or Pondimin, independently or in combination with the prescription drug phentermine (which the Company did not manufacture, distribute or market), caused certain serious conditions, including valvular heart disease.
    On October 7, 1999, the Company announced a nationwide, class action settlement (or the settlement) to resolve litigation brought against the Company regarding the use of the diet drugs Redux or Pondimin. The settlement covers all claims arising out of the use of Redux or Pondimin, except for claims of primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH), and is open to all Redux or Pondimin users in the United States, regardless of whether they have lawsuits pending. The settlement agreement is subject to judicial approval. Preliminary approval was granted on November 23, 1999. The settlement agreement states that it shall not be construed to be an admission or evidence of any liability or wrongdoing whatsoever by the Company or the truth of any of the claims alleged.
    Of the estimated 5.8 million diet drug users, approximately 260,000 individuals have registered for the settlement to date. A majority of those who registered have elected the settlement's Accelerated Implementation Option, which provides for prompt benefits and resolves the claims of those class members. An amendment to the settlement agreement, dated July 20, 2000, related to the timing of payments by the Company into the proposed settlement funds, administration of the settlement trust and opt out credits available to the Company. On August 28, 2000, Senior District Judge Louis C. Bechtle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania approved the settlement, which approval has been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A decision on that appeal is not expected until later in 2001.
    Payments by the Company related to the settlement are made into settlement Funds A and B (the settlement funds). Fund A is intended to cover refunds, medical screening costs, additional medical services and cash payments, education and research costs, and administration costs. Fund B will compensate claimants with significant heart valve disease. Payments to provide settlement benefits, if needed, may continue for approximately 16 years after final judicial approval. Payments to the settlement funds in 2000 and 1999 were $383,000,000 and $75,000,000, respectively. The settlement provides opportunities during three different time periods for claimants to opt out of the settlement. Under certain circumstances, the Company will receive credits for future settlement payments to claimants who opt out of the settlement.
    Approximately 50,000 diet drug users exercised the initial opt out right afforded by the nationwide, class action settlement and, therefore, are not part of the settlement. As of January 2001, the Company had agreed to settle the claims of approximately 80%, or 40,000 of these individuals. The claims of approximately 10,000 opt outs remain unresolved.
    In the 2000 fourth quarter, the Company recorded a $7,500,000,000 ($5,375,000,000 after-tax or $4.11 per share-diluted) litigation charge for the estimated final amount required to resolve all diet drug litigation, including all anticipated payments in connection with the nationwide, class action settlement, payments to the approximately 40,000 opt out claimants with whom the Company has agreed to settle, and all anticipated payments to resolve the claims of the remaining approximately 10,000 opt outs and any PPH claimants, as well as all legal fees and other costs. The Company recorded the initial litigation charge of $4,750,000,000 ($3,287,500,000 after-tax or $2.51 per share-diluted), net of insurance, related to the diet drug matters in the 1999 third quarter. At December 31, 2000, $8,165,574,000 of the total litigation accrual remained; $5,900,000,000 and $2,265,574,000 were included in Accrued expenses and Other noncurrent liabilities, respectively. At December 31, 1999, $4,632,419,000 of the initial litigation accrual remained; $1,400,000,000 and $3,232,419,000 were included in Accrued expenses and Other noncurrent liabilities, respectively. The amount of the reserve is based upon, among other things, the assumption that the settlement will receive final judicial approval. Payments to the nationwide, class action settlement funds, individual settlement payments, legal fees and other items were $3,966,845,000 and $117,581,000 in 2000 and 1999, respectively.
    The Company is a defendant in cases that have been consolidated in federal district court in Illinois as Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation (MDL 997) relating to claims made by certain retail pharmacies against the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers. The Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers also are defendants in similar litigation brought on behalf of consumers and in some cases on behalf of pharmacies in various state courts. The Company has settled the class action case in MDL 997 and certain other cases but remains as a defendant in other cases. The Company believes it has complied with the antitrust laws and other applicable laws and has settled these cases in order to avoid the costs and risks of litigation. The settlement agreements are not admissions of any violation of law.
    The Company is self-insured against ordinary product liability risks and has liability coverage, in excess of certain limits and subject to certain policy ceilings, from various insurance carriers.
    In the opinion of the Company, although the outcome of any legal proceedings cannot be predicted with certainty, the ultimate liability of the Company in connection with its legal proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial position but could be material to the results of operations and cash flows in any one accounting period.
    The Company leases certain property and equipment for varying periods under operating leases. Future minimum rental payments under non-cancelable operating leases from continuing operations with terms in excess of one year in effect at December 31, 2000 are as follows:

(In thousands)
2001	$115,161
2002	111,323
2003	107,045
2004	101,347
2005	100,462
Thereafter	99,294
Total rental commitments	$634,632

    Rental expense from continuing operations for all operating leases was $128,232,000, $135,144,000 and $118,558,000 in 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively.