Commitments and Contingencies | 16. Commitments and Contingencies The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including patent infringement claims, product liability matters, environmental matters, employment disputes, contractual disputes and other commercial disputes, including those described below. The Company believes that these legal proceedings and claims likely will be resolved over an extended period of time. Although it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes, unless indicated below, given the information currently available, that their ultimate resolutions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Governmental Proceedings Multnomah County Lawsuit. On August 3, 2017, the County of Multnomah filed a lawsuit in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon against certain prescription opioid manufacturers, including the Company, as well as distributors and healthcare providers. The lawsuit alleges the creation of a public nuisance arising from defendants’ manufacturing, distribution, marketing and promotion of opioids and alleges other common law claims. Plaintiff seeks economic damages and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Department of Justice Subpoena. On July 26, 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the Department of Justice for documents related to the marketing and sale of the Company’s opioid products. Staubus, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al . On June 13, 2017, the District Attorneys General of Tennessee’s First, Second and Third Judicial Districts and Baby Doe jointly filed a lawsuit in Sullivan County Circuit Court in Kingsport, Tennessee against certain prescription opioid manufacturers, including the Company. The lawsuit alleges violations of Tennessee’s Drug Dealer Liability Act and public nuisance laws arising out of defendants’ alleged opioid sales and marketing practices. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. SEC Subpoena. In January 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC for documents related to the Company’s public statements, filings and other disclosures regarding Acthar sales, profits, revenue, promotion and pricing. Boston Subpoena. In December 2016, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office ("USAO") for the District of Massachusetts for documents related to the Company’s provision of financial and other support to patients, including through charitable foundations, and related matters. Texas Pricing Investigation. In November 2014, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division of the Texas Attorney General's Office. According to the CID, the Attorney General's office is investigating the possibility of false reporting of information by the Company regarding the prices of certain of its drugs used by Texas Medicaid to establish reimbursement rates for pharmacies that dispensed the Company's drugs to Texas Medicaid recipients. Mallinckrodt Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and United States of America. The Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("the Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Greenbelt Division against the FDA and the United States of America in November 2014 for judicial review of what the Company believes is the FDA's inappropriate and unlawful reclassification of the Company's Methylphenidate HCl Extended-Release tablets USP (CII) ("Methylphenidate ER") in the Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence ("Orange Book") on November 13, 2014. In its Complaint, the Company asked the court to: issue an injunction to (a) set aside the FDA's reclassification of the Company's Methylphenidate ER products from freely substitutable at the pharmacy level (class AB) to presumed to be therapeutically inequivalent (class BX) in the Orange Book and (b) prohibit the FDA from reclassifying the Company's Methylphenidate ER products in the future without following applicable legal requirements; and issue a declaratory judgment that the FDA's action reclassifying the Company's Methylphenidate ER products in the Orange Book is unlawful. The Company concurrently filed a motion with the same court requesting an expedited hearing to issue a temporary restraining order ("TRO") directing the FDA to reinstate the Orange Book AB rating for the Company's Methylphenidate ER products on a temporary basis. The court denied the Company's motion for a TRO. In December 2014, the FDA filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint with the district court. The Company filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss in January 2015, and concurrently filed a motion for summary judgment. In July 2015, the court granted the FDA’s motion to dismiss with respect to three of the five counts in the Complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA with respect to the two remaining counts. The Company appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 18, 2016, the FDA initiated proceedings, proposing to withdraw approval of the Company's Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for Methylphenidate ER. On October 21, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order removing the Company’s pending litigation with the FDA from the Court’s oral argument calendar and placing that litigation in abeyance pending the outcome of the withdrawal proceedings. The Company concurrently submitted to the FDA requests for a hearing in the withdrawal proceeding and for a 90-day extension of the deadline for submitting documentation supporting the necessity of a hearing. The FDA granted the Company’s initial request to extend the deadline to March 20, 2017, and on February 21, 2017, the FDA suspended the deadline in order to give the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research ("CDER") an opportunity to complete its production of documents. CDER shared an initial set of documents with the Company in June 2017 and is in the process of finalizing a second set of documents to share with the Company. The Company is preparing the supporting documentation for its submission and plans to vigorously set forth its position in the withdrawal proceedings. Therakos Investigation. In March 2014, the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requested the production of documents related to an investigation of the U.S. promotion of Therakos’ immunotherapy drug/device system UVADEX/UVAR XTS and UVADEX/CELLEX (collectively, the "Therakos System"), for indications not approved by the FDA, including treatment of patients with graft versus host disease ("GvHD") and solid organ transplant patients, including pediatric patients. The investigation also includes Therakos’ efforts to secure FDA approval for additional uses of, and alleged quality issues relating to, UVADEX/UVAR. In August 2015, the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sent Therakos a subsequent request for documents related to the investigation and has since made certain related requests. We are in the process of responding to those requests. FTC Investigation. In June 2014, Questcor Inc. ("Questcor") received a subpoena and CID from the FTC seeking documentary materials and information regarding the FTC's investigation into whether Questcor's acquisition of certain rights to develop, market, manufacture, distribute, sell and commercialize MNK-1411 (the product formerly described as Synacthen Depot®) from Novartis AG and Novartis Pharma AG (collectively, "Novartis") violates antitrust laws. Subsequently, California, Maryland, Texas, Washington, New York and Alaska (collectively, "the Investigating States") commenced similar investigations focused on whether the transaction violates state antitrust laws. On January 17, 2017, the FTC, all Investigating States (except California) ("the Settling States") and the Company entered into an agreement to resolve this matter for a one-time cash payment of $102.0 million and an agreement to license MNK-1411 to a third party designated by the FTC for possible development in Infantile Spasms ("IS") and Nephrotic Syndrome ("NS") in the U.S. To facilitate that settlement, a complaint was filed on January 18, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The settlement was approved by the court on January 30, 2017. On July 16, 2017, the Company announced the completion of the U.S. license of both the Synacthen trademark and certain intellectual property associated with MNK-1411 to West Pharmaceuticals to develop and pursue possible FDA approval of the product in IS and NS. The Company retains the right to develop MNK-1411 for all other indications in the U.S. and retains rights to the Synacthen trademark outside the U.S. Questcor DOJ Investigation. In September 2012, Questcor received a subpoena from the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for information relating to its promotional practices related to Acthar. Questcor has also been informed by the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that the USAO for the Southern District of New York and the SEC are participating in the investigation to review Questcor's promotional practices and related matters related to Acthar. On March 9, 2015, the Company received a "No Action" letter from the SEC regarding its review of the Company's promotional practices related to Acthar. DEA Investigation. In November 2011 and October 2012, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration requesting production of documents relating to its suspicious order monitoring program for controlled substances. The USAO for the Eastern District of Michigan is investigating the possibility that the Company failed to report suspicious orders of controlled substances during the period 2006-2011 in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and its related regulations. The USAO for the Northern District of New York and Office of Chief Counsel for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") are investigating the possibility that the Company failed to maintain appropriate records and security measures with respect to manufacturing of certain controlled substances at its Hobart facility during the period 2012-2013. On July 11, 2017, the Company entered into a final settlement with the DEA and the USAOs for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Northern District of New York to settle these investigations. As part of the agreement, the Company paid $35.0 million to resolve all potential claims. We have responded to or are in the process of responding to each of the unresolved subpoenas and CIDs and we intend to cooperate fully in each such investigation. Patent/Antitrust Litigation Putative Class Action Litigation . On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories that paid for Acthar from August 2007 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of Acthar. To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired with UBC and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling Acthar through an exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on consumers by failing to correctly identify Acthar’s active ingredient on package inserts. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Inomax Patent Litigation: Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. (collectively "Praxair"). In February 2015, INO Therapeutics LLC and Ikaria, Inc., subsidiaries of the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Praxair following receipt of a January 2015 notice from Praxair concerning its submission of an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a generic version of Inomax. In July 2016, the Company filed a second suit against Praxair in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following receipt of a Paragraph IV notice concerning three additional patents recently added to the FDA Orange Book that was submitted by Praxair regarding its ANDA for a generic version of Inomax. The infringement claims in the second suit have been added to the original suit. In September 2016, the Company filed a third suit against Praxair in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following receipt of a Paragraph IV notice concerning a fourth patent recently added to the FDA Orange Book that was submitted by Praxair regarding its ANDA for a generic version of Inomax. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Inomax in both the Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and Praxair litigation proceedings to prevent the marketing of infringing generic products prior to the expiration of the patents covering Inomax. Trial of the suit filed in February 2015 was held in March 2017 and a decision is not expected until later in 2017. An adverse outcome in the Praxair litigation ultimately could result in the launch of a generic version of Inomax before the expiration of the last of the listed patents on February 19, 2034 (August 19, 2034 including pediatric exclusivity), which could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of Inomax and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Inomax Patents: IPR Proceedings. In February 2015 and March 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") issued Notices of Filing Dates Accorded to Petitions for IPR petitions filed by Praxair Distribution, Inc. concerning ten patents covering Inomax (i.e., five patents expiring in 2029 and five patents expiring in 2031). In July 2015, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") issued rulings denying the institution of four of the five IPR petitions challenging the five patents expiring in 2029. The PTAB also issued a ruling in July 2015 that instituted the IPR proceeding in the fifth of this group of patents and the PTAB ruled in July 2016 that one claim of this patent survived review and is valid while the remaining claims were unpatentable. The Company believes the valid claim describes and encompasses the manner in which Inomax is distributed in conjunction with its approved labeling and that Praxair infringes that claim. Praxair filed an appeal and the Company filed a cross-appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2016, Praxair Distribution, Inc. submitted additional IPR petitions for the five patents expiring in 2029. The PTAB issued non-appealable rulings in August and September 2016 denying institution of all five of these additional IPR petitions. In September 2015, the USPTO PTAB issued rulings that instituted the IPR proceedings in each of the second set of five patents that expire in 2031. In September 2016, the PTAB ruled that all claims in the five patents expiring in 2031 are patentable. Ofirmev Patent Litigation: B. Braun Medical Inc. In April 2017, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against B. Braun Medical Inc. ("B. Braun") alleging that B. Braun infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,992,218 ("the ‘218 patent") and 9,399,012 ("the ‘012 patent") following receipt of a February 2017 notice from B. Braun concerning its submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA"), containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. Following receipt of a second Paragraph IV notice letter from B. Braun on April 24, 2017 directed to the ‘012 patent, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. and Mallinckrodt IP filed suit in June 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against B. Braun alleging that B. Braun infringed the ‘012 patent and U.S. 9,610,265 (“the ‘265 patent”). In both instances, a protective suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to protect the 30-month stay against any venue challenge in Delaware. In July 2017, B. Braun filed motions to dismiss both actions in Delaware due to improper venue based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court TC Heartland decision on venue in patent cases, and also filed a separate motion to dismiss in the original action in Pennsylvania. Following receipt of a third Paragraph IV notice letter from B. Braun on July 13, 2017 that included a certification to the ‘265 patent, amended complaints were filed in July 2017 in the U.S. District Courts for the Districts of Delaware and Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc., Mallinckrodt IP and Pharmatop. Also in July 2017, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc., Mallinckrodt IP and Pharmatop filed a motion to stay the action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Ofirmev Patent Litigation: Agila Specialties Private Limited, Inc. (now Mylan Laboratories Ltd.) and Agila Specialties Inc. (a Mylan Inc. Company), (collectively “Agila”). In December 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Agila alleging that Agila infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and the '218 patent following receipt of a November 2014 notice from Agila concerning its submission of a NDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. Separately, on December 1, 2016 Mallinckrodt IP filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Agila alleging that Agila infringed the ‘012 patent. On December 31, 2016, the parties entered into settlement agreements on both suits under which Agila was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its NDA on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances. Ofirmev Patent Litigation: InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. In September 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. (both are subsidiaries of Pfizer and collectively "InnoPharma") alleging that InnoPharma infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and the '218 patent following receipt of an August 2014 notice from InnoPharma concerning its submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA"), containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. Separately, on December 1, 2016 Mallinckrodt IP filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma alleging that InnoPharma infringed the ‘012 patent. On May 4, 2017, the parties entered into settlement agreements on both suits under which InnoPharma was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its NDA on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances. The Company has successfully asserted the ‘222 and ‘218 patents and maintained their validity in both litigation and proceedings at the USPTO. The Company will continue to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Ofirmev to prevent the marketing of infringing generic or competing products prior to December 6, 2020, which, if unsuccessful, could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of Ofirmev and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. In March 2007, the Company filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., et al. (collectively, "Mutual") after Mutual submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking to sell a generic version of the Company's 7.5 mg RESTORIL™ sleep aid product. Mutual also filed antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. The patents at issue have since expired or been found invalid. The trial court issued an opinion and order granting the Company's motion for summary judgment regarding Mutual's antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. Mutual appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit issued a split decision, affirming the trial court in part and remanding to the trial court certain counterclaims for further proceedings. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court regarding the remanded issues. In May 2015, the trial court issued an opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. In March 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and the case was dismissed. Commercial and Securities Litigation Employee Stock Purchase Plan Securities Litigation. On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through Mallinckrodt’s Employee Stock Purchase Plans (“ESPPs”), filed a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. , against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark C. Trudeau ("CEO") , its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh ("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former directors of the Company. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, in the ESPPs. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same period. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs’ assets and breach of contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the putative class action securities litigation described in the following paragraph. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Putative Class Action Securities Litigation. On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al . The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Mallinckrodt’s publicly traded securities on a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements related to Acthar and Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the Company’s stock. In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term sustainability of Acthar revenues, and the exposure of Acthar to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit, captioned Fulton County Employees’ Retirement System v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Retrophin Litigation. In January 2014, Retrophin, Inc. ("Retrophin") filed a lawsuit against Questcor in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging a variety of federal and state antitrust violations based on Questcor's acquisition from Novartis of certain rights to develop, market, manufacture, distribute, sell and commercialize Synacthen. In June 2015, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, under the terms of which Retrophin agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and Questcor agreed to make a one-time cash payment to Retrophin in the amount of $15.5 million . Putative Class Action Securities Litigation. In September 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al . The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The complaint generally alleged that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales. The complaint asserted that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act"), by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of Acthar in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and nephrotic syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and Questcor's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. This lawsuit was consolidated with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation . In October 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2013, Questcor filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint and fact discovery was concluded in January 2015. In April 2015, the parties executed a long-form settlement agreement, under the terms of which Questcor agreed to pay $38.0 million to resolve the plaintiff's claims, inclusive of all fees and costs. Questcor and the individual defendants maintain that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation. During fiscal 2015, the Company established a $38.0 million reserve for this settlement, which was subsequently paid to a settlement fund. The court issued its final approval of the settlement on September 18, 2015. Glenridge Litigation. In June 2011, Glenridge Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Glenridge"), filed a lawsuit against Questcor in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, alleging that Questcor had underpaid royalties to Glenridge under a royalty agreement related to net sales of Acthar. In August 2012, Questcor filed a separate lawsuit against the three principals of Glenridge, as well as Glenridge, challenging the enforceability of the royalty agreement. In August 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one case in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. In October 2014, the parties entered into a binding term sheet settling the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the royalty rate payable by Questcor was reduced, royalties were capped instead of being payable for so long as Acthar was sold and Questcor agreed to pay Glenridge a reduced amount in satisfaction of royalties Questcor had previously accrued but not paid during the course of the lawsuit. In February 2015, the settlement agreement was finalized, with terms consistent with the October 2014 term sheet. Pricing Litigation State of Utah v. Apotex Corp., et al. The Company, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, was a defendant in this matter which was filed in May 2008, in the Third Judicial Circuit of Salt Lake County, Utah. The State of Utah alleges, generally, that the defendants reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Utah Medicaid, resulting in overpayment by Utah Medicaid for those drugs, and is seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and vigorously defended against them. In December 2015, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, under the terms of which the State of Utah agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and the Company agreed to make a one-time cash payment to the State of Utah within the reserve established for this matter. Environmental Remediation and Litigation Proceedings The Company is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites, including those described below. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash outlays is difficult to predict, given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. The Company concluded that, as of June 30, 2017 , it was probable that it would incur remedial costs in the range of $38.0 million to $116.1 million . The Company also concluded that, as of June 30, 2017 , the best estimate within this range was $75.9 million , of which $2.3 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the remainder was included in environmental liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2017 . While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the final resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Coldwater Creek, Saint Louis County, Missouri. The Company is named as a defendant in numerous tort complaints with numerous plaintiffs pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri that were filed in or after February 2012. These cases allege personal injury for alleged exposure to radiological substances, including in Coldwater Creek in Missouri, and in the air. Plaintiffs allegedly lived and/or worked in various locations in Saint Louis County, Missouri, near Coldwater Creek. Radiological residues which may have been present in the creek have previously been remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"). The USACE continues to study and remediate the creek and surrounding areas. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these complaints and is vigorously defending against them. The Company is unable to estimate a range of rea |