Commitments and Contingencies | 17. 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 are not expected to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Governmental Proceedings Opioid Related Matters Multidistrict Litigation. The Company, along with other opioid manufacturers and often, distributors, has been named in lawsuits brought by various counties, cities, Native American tribes, hospitals, health care clinics, Medicaid managed care organizations, and third-party payers. In general, the lawsuits assert claims of public nuisance, negligence, civil conspiracy, fraud, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") 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 Courts. 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 were originally filed in U.S. District Courts or removed to U.S. District Courts from state court. There are currently 1,275 lawsuits naming the Company that either are 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 July 12, 2018, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through its Attorney General, filed suit in the Madison County Circuit Court in Kentucky against the Company. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act, Medicaid Fraud Statute and Assistance Program Fraud Statute, asserts claims of public nuisance, fraud, negligence and unjust enrichment, and seeks relief similar to that sought in other state and federal actions. On May 15, 2018, the State of Florida, through its Attorney General, filed suit in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pasco County in Florida against certain opioid distributors and manufacturers, including the Company. The lawsuit asserts violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices and RICO, asserts claims of public nuisance and negligence and seeks relief similar to that sought in other state and federal actions. 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 88 lawsuits pending in state courts in Alabama (1), Arkansas (1), Connecticut (2), Florida (2), Georgia (1), Illinois (3), Louisiana (2), Maryland (1), Massachusetts (2), Missouri (1), Nevada (1), New Hampshire (8), New York (16), Oklahoma (1), Pennsylvania (10), Tennessee (3), Texas (12), Utah (7), Virginia (12) and West Virginia (2). These state lawsuits are brought on behalf of cities, counties, towns, third party payers, individuals, and hospitals. 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, on February 5, 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the Attorney General's Office for the State of Alaska, on May 15, 2018, the Company received a CID from the Attorney General's Office for the State of South Carolina, and on September 25, 2018, the Company received a CID from the Attorney General's Office for Puerto Rico. 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. On August 2, 2018, Energy and Commerce Committee leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to the Company requesting information about the Company's efforts to monitor its opioid sales for suspicious orders. The Company is in the process of responding to this letter. The Company intends to cooperate fully in these investigations. Since these lawsuits and investigations are in early stages, the Company is unable to predict their outcome or estimate a range of reasonably possible losses. Other Matters Generic Pricing Subpoena. In March 2018, the Company received a grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to which the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice is seeking documents regarding generic products and pricing, communications with generic competitors and other related matters. The Company is in the process of responding to this subpoena, and the Company intends to cooperate fully in the investigation. 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, 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"). 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. In April 2018, the Company filed its submission in support of its position in the withdrawal proceedings. A potential outcome of the withdrawal proceedings is that the Company's Methylphenidate ER products may lose their FDA approval. FTC Investigation. In June 2014, Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("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 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 Synacthen Depot 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 Synacthen Depot 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 (the product formerly described as Synacthen Depot) 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, New York facility during the period 2012-2013. In July 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. 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 Amitiza Patent Litigation: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.. In October 2018, Sucampo AG, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sucampo Pharma LLC, subsidiaries of the Company, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively "Takeda," the exclusive licensee under the patents in litigation) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (collectively “Sun”) alleging that Sun infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,795,312, 8,026,393, 8,097,653, 8,338,639, 8,389,542, 8,748,481 and 8,779,187 following receipt of a September 2018 notice from Sun concerning its submission of an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a generic version of Amitiza. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Amitiza. Amitiza Patent Litigation: Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. In September 2017, Sucampo AG and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., subsidiaries of the Company, and Takeda filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") alleging that Teva infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,414,016, 6,982,283, 7,795,312, 8,026,393, 8,071,613, 8,097,653, 8,338,639, 8,389,542 and 8,748,481 following receipt of an August 2017 notice from Teva concerning its submission of an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a generic version of Amitiza. On June 28, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Teva was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing lubiprostone product in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after January 1, 2023, or earlier under certain circumstances. Amitiza Patent Litigation: Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC. In April 2017, Sucampo AG and Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., subsidiaries of the Company, and Takeda filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Amneal") alleging that Amneal infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,982,283, 8,026,393, 8,097,653, 8,338,639 and 8,389,542 following receipt of a March 2017 notice from Amneal concerning its submission of an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a generic version of Amitiza. On June 28, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Amneal was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing lubiprostone product in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after January 1, 2023, or earlier under certain circumstances. Amitiza Patent Litigation: Par and DRL. Settlement and License Agreements were entered into with Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (collectively "Par") and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. (collectively "DRL") to settle Paragraph IV patent litigation with each of Par and DRL. Under the terms of the Par settlement dated September 30, 2014, Par was granted a non-exclusive license and right to market a competing generic of Amitiza on or after January 1, 2021, or earlier under certain circumstances. Under the terms of the DRL settlement dated September 14, 2016, DRL was granted a non-exclusive license and right to market a competing generic of Amitiza on or after January 1, 2023, or earlier under certain circumstances. 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 the Praxair litigation 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. Praxair received FDA approval of their ANDA for their Noxivent nitric oxide and clearance of their 510(k) for their NOxBOXi device on October 2, 2018. An adverse outcome in the appeal of the Praxair litigation decision (or a decision by Praxair to launch at-risk prior to the appellate decision) could result in the launch of a generic version of Inomax before the expiration of the last of the listed patents on May 3, 2036 (November 3, 2036 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 believed the claim held valid by the PTAB describes and encompasses a 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 in January 2018. The Federal Circuit decision was issued May 16, 2018 and held all claims unpatentable (invalid). 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 Group, subsidiaries of the Company, and New Pharmatop L.P. ("Pharmatop"), 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 ® . On May 7, 2018 the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Aurobindo was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances. 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. On October 3, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which B. Braun was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances. Ofirmev Patent Litigation: InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. In September 2014, Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("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"). 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. Group), (collectively "Agila"). In December 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop 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. 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. Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Group, 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. In March 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement regarding the antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims and the case was dismissed. 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 (collectively, "Jazz") filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,668,730, 7,765,106, 7,765,107, 7,895,059, 8,457,988, 8,589,182, 8,731,963, 8,772,306, 9,050,302, and 9,486,426 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. On June 4, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which the Company was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing sodium oxybate product in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after December 31, 2025, or earlier under certain circumstances. Shire Development LLC, Shire LLC and Shire US, Inc. v. SpecGx LLC. In May 2018, Shire Development LLC, Shire LLC and Shire US, Inc. (collectively “Shire”) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,913,768, 8,846,100, and 9,173,857 following receipt of an April 2018 notice from the Company concerning its submission of an ANDA, containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Mydayis. The Company intends to vigorously defend its position. Commercial and Securities Litigation Grifols. On March 13, 2018, Grifols initiated arbitration against the Company, alleging breach of a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement entered into between the Company's predecessor-in-interest, Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Grifols. Mallinckrodt intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. 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 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 |