The estimated costs of our plan and our belief that we have completed each of the phases of the plan are based upon management’s best estimates, which rely upon numerous assumptions regarding future events, including the continued availability of certain resources, third-party remediation plans and other factors. These estimates, however, may prove not to be accurate, and actual results could differ materially from those anticipated. Factors that could result in material differences include, without limitation, the availability and cost of personnel with the requisite training and experience; the ability to appropriately identify, assess, remediate and test all devices, all relevant computer codes and embedded technology; and similar uncertainties. In addition, Year 2000-related issues may lead to possible third-party claims, the impact of which we cannot yet estimate. We cannot assure you that the aggregate cost of defending and resolving such claims, if any, would not have a material adverse effect on us.

On January 1, 1999, eleven member countries of the European Union began the transition to the euro as a common currency. Prior to the full implementation of the new currency on January 1, 2002, there is a transition period during which parties may use either their national currencies or the euro. We have completed the necessary system modifications to accommodate euro-denominated transactions with suppliers and customers. We are continuing to convert historical information from the respective national currencies to the euro. We believe that the creation of the euro will not significantly change our foreign exchange market risk. The adoption of a common European currency may result in changes to competitive practices, product pricing and marketing strategies. Although we are unable to quantify these effects, if any, management currently does not anticipate that the euro conversion will have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

We believe that the fundamentally non-cyclical nature of our core products, our international diversification and our ability to meet the needs of the worldwide health care industry for cost-effective and innovative products will continue to cushion the long-term impact on us of economic and political dislocations in the countries in which we do business, including the effects of possible health care system reforms. In 1999, inflation did not have a material impact on our overall operations.

We, along with a number of other manufacturers, have been named as a defendant in approximately 300 product liability lawsuits related to natural rubber latex that have been filed in various state and Federal courts. Cases pending in Federal court are being coordinated under the matter In re Latex Gloves Products Liability Litigation (MDL Docket No. 1148) in Philadelphia, and analogous procedures have been implemented in the state courts of California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and New York. Generally, these actions allege that medical personnel have suffered allergic reactions ranging from skin irritation to anaphylaxis as a result of exposure to medical gloves containing natural rubber latex. In 1986, we acquired a business which manufactured, among other things, latex surgical gloves. In 1995, we divested this glove business. We are vigorously defending these lawsuits.

We, along with another manufacturer and several medical product distributors, have been named as a defendant in eleven product liability lawsuits relating to health care work-ers who allegedly sustained accidental needle sticks, but have not become infected with any disease. The case brought in California under the caption Chavez vs. Becton Dickinson (Case No. 722978, San Diego County Superior Court), filed on August 4, 1998 was dismissed in a judgment filed March 19, 1999 which has been appealed by plaintiffs. The case brought in Florida under the caption Delgado vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98-5608, Hillsborough County Circuit Court), filed on July 24, 1998 was voluntarily withdrawn by the plaintiffs on March 8, 1999. Cases have been filed on behalf of an unspecified number of health care workers in nine other states, seeking class action certification under the laws of these states. To date, no class has been certified in any of these cases. The nine remaining actions are pending in state court in Texas, under the caption Usrey vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 342-173329-98, Tarrant County District Court), filed on April 9, 1998; in Federal court in Ohio, under the caption Grant vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. C2 98-844, Southern District of Ohio), filed on July 22, 1998; in state court in Illinois, under the caption McCaster vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98L09478, Cook County Circuit Court), filed on August 13, 1998; in state court in Oklahoma, under the caption Palmer vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. CJ-98-685, Sequoyah County District Court), filed on October 27, 1998; in state court in Alabama, under the caption Daniels vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. CV 1998 2757, Montgomery County Circuit Court), filed on October 30, 1998; in state court in South Carolina, under the caption Bales vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 98-CP-40-4343, Richland County Court of Common Pleas), filed on November 25, 1998; in state court in Pennsylvania, under the caption Brown vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 03474, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas), filed on November 27, 1998; in state court in New Jersey, under the caption Pollak, Swartley vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. L-9449-98, Camden County Superior Court), filed on December 7, 1998; and in state court in New York, under the caption Benner vs. Becton Dickinson et al. (Case No. 99-111372, Supreme Court of the State of New York), filed on June 1, 1999.