Commitments and Contingencies | 19. Commitments and Contingencies The Company has purchase obligations related to commitments to purchase certain goods and services. At December 29, 2017 , such obligations were as follows: Fiscal 2018 $ 122.6 Fiscal 2019 72.3 Fiscal 2020 60.9 Fiscal 2021 16.1 Fiscal 2022 15.4 The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including patent infringement claims, product liability matters, personal injury, 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 resolution will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Governmental Proceedings Opioid Related Matters Multidistrict Litigation. The Company has been named in lawsuits court brought by various counties, cities, Native American tribes, hospitals, third-party payers and others against opioid manufacturers and, often, distributors. In general, the lawsuits assert claims of public nuisance, negligence, civil conspiracy, fraud, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act or similar state laws, consumer fraud, deceptive trade practices, insurance fraud, unjust enrichment and other common law claims arising from defendants’ manufacturing, distribution, marketing and promotion of opioids and seek restitution, damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits were originally filed against, or amended to include, the Company in various U.S. District Courts or in state courts with the state court lawsuits subsequently removed to U.S. District Court. On December 5, 2017 the Judicial Panel in Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) issued its order establishing a Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) in the Northern District of Ohio for opioid litigation cases and transferring those cases to the MDL that are originally filed in U.S. District Courts or removed to U.S. District Courts from state court. There are currently approximately 262 lawsuits naming the Company that are either in the MDL or are expected to be transferred to the MDL. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. State Court Lawsuits. On December 20, 2017, the State of New Mexico, through its Attorney General, amended its lawsuit pending in the First Judicial District Court in the County of Santa Fe against certain opioid distributors and manufacturers, to add the Company. The lawsuit asserts violations of public nuisance laws and the New Mexico Unfair Practices, Medicaid Fraud and Racketeering Acts and seeks relief similar to that sought in other state and federal actions. In addition, the Company is currently named in 18 lawsuits pending in state courts in California (6), Florida (1), Louisiana (1), Maryland (1), New Jersey (1), Ohio (1), Pennsylvania (1), Tennessee (3) and West Virginia (3). These state lawsuits are brought on behalf of towns, counties, Medicaid managed care organizations, Native American tribes and an addiction recovery corporation. The lawsuits assert claims and seek damages similar to those sought in the cases pending before the MDL. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these state court matters. Investigations. The Company has also received various subpoenas and requests for information related to the distribution, marketing and sale of the Company’s opioid products. On July 26, 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the Department of Justice ("DOJ"), on August 24, 2017, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, on September 22, 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s Office, on January 9, 2018, the Company received a subpoena and CID from the Kentucky Attorney General’s Office, on January 16, 2018, the Company received a CID from the Attorney General’s Office for the State of Washington and on February 5, 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Attorney General's Office from the State of Alaska. In addition, on January 27, 2018 the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorneys’ Office (“USAO”) for the Southern District of Florida for documents related to the Company’s distribution, marketing and sale of its oxymorphone generic products. The Company is in the process of responding to these subpoenas and CIDs. The Company has been contacted by the coalition of State Attorneys General investigating the role manufacturers and distributors may have had in contributing to the increased use of opioids in the U.S. The Company intends to cooperate fully in these investigations. Since these lawsuits and investigations are in early stages, the Company is unable to predict its outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. Other Matters 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 H.P. Acthar Gel sales, profits, revenue, promotion and pricing. The Company has responded to this subpoena, and in February 2018, the SEC notified the Company that it had concluded its investigation and that no enforcement action was recommended against the Company. Boston Subpoena. In December 2016, the Company received a subpoena from the 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. The Company is in the process of responding to this subpoena, and the Company intends to cooperate fully in the investigation. Texas Pricing Investigation. In November 2014, the Company received a 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. The Company has responded to these requests. Mallinckrodt Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and United States of America. In November 2014, the Company filed a Complaint ("the Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Greenbelt Division against the FDA and the United States 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. The Company also sought a temporary restraining order ("TRO") directing the FDA to reinstate the Orange Book AB rating for the Company's Methylphenidate ER products. The court denied the Company's motion for a TRO and 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 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 an 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, 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 a second set of documents in October 2017. Following the Company’s receipt of the October tranche of documents from CDER, the Company presented a supplemental document request to CDER to ensure all of its initial document requests were fulfilled, and on February 13, 2018, CDER provided a final set of documents in response to the Company’s requests. The Company is preparing the legal arguments in support of its position in the withdrawal proceedings, which it will be filing in early third quarter of fiscal 2018. A potential outcome of the withdrawal proceedings is that the Company’s Methylphenidate ER products may lose their FDA approval, which could have a material, negative impact to the Company’s Specialty Generics segment. FTC Investigation. In June 2014, Questcor received a subpoena and CID from the Federal Trade Commission ("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. 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’ 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. The Company is in the process of responding to these requests. DEA Investigation. In November 2011 and October 2012, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") requesting production of documents relating to its suspicious order monitoring program for controlled substances. The USAO for the Eastern District of Michigan investigated 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. DEA investigated 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. In July 2017, the Company entered into a final settlement with the DEA and the USAOs for 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. 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 H.P. Acthar Gel. 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 were participating in the investigation to review Questcor's promotional practices and related matters related to H.P. Acthar Gel. 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 H.P. Acthar Gel. The Company intends to cooperate fully in the investigation. Patent Litigation 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 was rendered September 5, 2017 that ruled five patents invalid and six patents not infringed. The Company has appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. An adverse outcome in the appeal of the Praxair litigation decision 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 Mallinckrodt filed a cross-appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Oral argument of that appeal occurred on January 9, 2017. 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: Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc. In December 2017, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. and Mallinckrodt IP Unlimited Company, subsidiaries of the Company, and New Pharmatop LP, the current 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 Aurobindo Pharma U.S.A., Inc. (“Aurobindo”) alleging that Aurobindo infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,992,218 ("the ‘218 patent"), U.S. Patent No. 9,399,012 ("the ‘012 patent") and U.S. Patent No. 9,610,265 ("the ‘265 patent") following receipt of a November 2017 notice from Aurobindo concerning its submission of an ANDA, containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. Ofirmev Patent Litigation: B. Braun Medical Inc. In April 2017, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the then 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 the ‘218 patent and 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 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. A hearing occurred August 24, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware regarding B. Braun’s motion to dismiss the Delaware actions for improper venue. The judge in the Delaware District Court denied B. Braun’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice and ordered venue-related discovery on December 14, 2017. Subsequently, B. Braun withdrew the challenge to venue in Delaware but proceeded to file new motions to dismiss the Delaware actions on January 5, 2018. A scheduling conference occurred October 4, 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and no decisions were rendered on any of the pending motions. The actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania were dismissed by stipulation on December 28, 2017. Ofirmev Patent Litigation: InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. In September 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the then 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 Nos. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and 6,992,218 ("the '218 patent") following receipt of an August 2014 notice from InnoPharma 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 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. 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 then 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 the '222 and the '218 patents 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. 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. Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt Inc. and Mallinckrodt LLC. In January 2018, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland (“Jazz”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging that the Company infringed United States Patent Nos. 7,668,730 (the “’730 patent”), 7,765,106 (the “’106 patent”), 7,765,107 (the “’107 patent”), 7,895,059 (the “’059 patent”), 8,457,988 (the “’988 patent”), 8,589,182 (the “’182 patent”), 8,731,963 (the “’963 patent”), 8,772,306 (the “’306 patent”), 9,050,302 (the “’302 patent”), and 9,486,426 (the “’426 patent”) following receipt of a November 2017 notice from the Company concerning its submission of an ANDA, containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Xyrem. 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 Putative Class Action Litigation (MSP) . On October 30, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The case is captioned MSP Recovery Claims, Series II LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of two classes: all Medicare Advantage Organizations and related entities in the U.S. who purchased or provided reimbursement for H.P. Acthar Gel pursuant to (i) Medicare Part C contracts (Class 1) and (ii) Medicare Part D contracts (Class 2) since January 1, 2011, with certain exclusions. The complaint alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of H.P. Acthar Gel. To this end, the complaint alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot and reaching anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network. The complaint purports to allege claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state unfair competition and unfair trade practice laws. Pursuant to a motion filed by defendants, this case has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Putative Class Action Litigation . On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and 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 was subsequently amended, most recently on December 8, 2017, to include an additional named plaintiff and additional defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain others, that paid for H.P. Acthar Gel 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 H.P. Acthar Gel. 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 H.P. Acthar Gel through an exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on consumers by failing to correctly identify H.P. Acthar Gel’s active ingredient on package inserts. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. 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. On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 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 H.P. Acthar Gel 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 H.P. Acthar Gel revenues, and the exposure of H.P. Acthar Gel 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. ("R |