| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 11. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings and Investigations We and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in various claims, legal proceedings, internal and governmental investigations (collectively, proceedings) that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, including, among others, those relating to product liability, intellectual property, regulatory compliance and commercial matters. While we cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings and we intend to defend vigorously our position, an adverse outcome in any of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our current and future financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Matters that are not being disclosed herein are, in the opinion of our management, immaterial both individually and in the aggregate with respect to our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. If and when such matters, in the opinion of our management, become material either individually or in the aggregate, we will disclose such matters. As of March 31, 2017 , our reserve for loss contingencies totaled $758.7 million , of which $714.4 million relates to our product liability accrual for vaginal mesh cases. Although we believe there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. Product Liability We and certain of our subsidiaries have been named as defendants in numerous lawsuits in various U.S. federal and state courts, as well as in Canada and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of certain products of our subsidiaries. These matters are described below in more detail. We believe that certain settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to certain product liability matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under our product liability insurance policies with a number of insurance carriers. In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights to contest or deny coverage. We intend to contest vigorously any and all such disputes with our insurance carriers and to enforce our rights under the terms of our insurance policies. Accordingly, we will record receivables with respect to amounts due under these policies only when the resolution of any dispute has been reached and realization of the potential claim for recovery is considered probable. Amounts recovered under our product liability insurance policies will likely be less than the stated coverage limits and may not be adequate to cover damages and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay claims or that coverage will otherwise be available. Vaginal Mesh Cases. In October 2008, the FDA issued a Public Health Notification (October 2008 Public Health Notification) regarding potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). The notification provided recommendations and encouraged physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. In July 2011, the FDA issued an update to the October 2008 Public Health Notification regarding mesh to further advise the public and the medical community of the potential complications associated with transvaginal placement of surgical mesh to treat POP and SUI. In the July 2011 update, the FDA stated that adverse events are not rare. Furthermore, the FDA questioned the relative effectiveness of transvaginal mesh as a treatment for POP as compared to non-mesh surgical repair. The July 2011 notification continued to encourage physicians to seek specialized training in mesh procedures, to consider and to advise their patients about the risks associated with these procedures and to be diligent in diagnosing and reporting complications. In January 2016, the FDA issued a statement reclassifying surgical mesh for transvaginal POP repair from Class II to Class III. Surgical mesh for SUI repair remains a Class II device. In January 2012, the FDA ordered manufacturers of transvaginal surgical mesh used for POP and of single incision mini-slings for urinary incontinence, such as our AMS subsidiary, to conduct post-market safety studies and to monitor adverse event rates relating to the use of these products. The FDA agreed to place 16 AMS study orders on hold for a variety of reasons. AMS commenced three of these post-market study orders. However, due to the wind-down of the Astora business in 2016, AMS notified the FDA of its termination of these studies and the FDA has confirmed closure of those studies. Since 2008, we and certain of our subsidiaries, including AMS and/or Astora, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in the U.S. in various state and federal courts, including a multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325), in Canada, where various class action and individual complaints are pending, and in other countries alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI. Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries including chronic pain, incontinence and inability to control bowel function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, where available. We and certain plaintiffs’ counsel representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other settlement agreements regarding settling up to approximately 49,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel for an aggregate total of approximately $2.8 billion . These MSAs, which were executed at various times since June 2013, were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of QSFs into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation thresholds regarding the claims represented by each law firm party to the MSA. If certain participation thresholds are not met, then we will have the right to terminate the settlement with that law firm. In addition, one agreement gives us a unilateral right of approval regarding which claims may be eligible to participate under that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than are authorized under an agreement participate, the total settlement payment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-upon amount for each such non-participating claim. Funds deposited in QSFs are included in restricted cash and cash equivalents in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets . Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating the validity of the claim, a full release and a dismissal of the entire action or claim as to all AMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant is required to represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights or other claims identified in the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant. Confidentiality provisions apply to the amount of settlement awards to participating claimants, the claims evaluation process and procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and the negotiations leading to the settlements. We expect that valid claims under the MSAs will continue to be settled. However, we intend to vigorously contest pending and future claims that are invalid, for which settlement is unable to be reached or that are in excess of the maximum claim amounts under the applicable MSAs. In addition to claims covered by MSAs, we are currently aware of approximately 10,500 claims that have been filed, asserted or that we believe are likely to be asserted. These claims have not been accrued for because we lack sufficient information to determine whether any potential loss is probable. In addition, there may be other claims asserted in the future. It is currently not possible to estimate the number or validity of any such future claims. In order to evaluate whether a claim is probable of a loss, we must obtain and evaluate certain information pertaining to each individual claim, including but not limited to the following items: the name and social security number of the plaintiff, evidence of an AMS implant, the date of implant, the date the claim was first asserted to AMS and medical records establishing the injury alleged. Without access to and review of at least this information and the opportunity to evaluate it, we are not in a position to determine a claim’s validity or whether a loss is probable. Further, the timing and extent to which we obtain this information and our evaluation thereof, is often impacted by items outside of our control, including, without limitation, the normal cadence of the litigation process and the provision of claim information to us by plaintiff’s counsel. We will continue to monitor the situation, and, if appropriate, we will make further adjustments to our product liability accrual based on new information. We intend to continue exploring all options as appropriate in our best interests, and depending on developments, there is a possibility that we will suffer adverse decisions or verdicts of substantial amounts, or that we will enter into additional monetary settlements. Any unfavorable outcomes as a result of such litigation or settlements with respect to any asserted or unasserted claims could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. As of the date of this report, we believe that the current product liability accrual includes all known claims for which liability is probable. The following table presents the changes in the vaginal mesh QSFs and product liability accrual balance during the three months ended March 31, 2017 (in thousands): Qualified Settlement Funds Product Liability Accrual Balance as of December 31, 2016 $ 275,987 $ 963,117 Additional charges — — Cash contributions to Qualified Settlement Funds 243,344 — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (247,530 ) (247,530 ) Cash distributions to settle disputes — (1,224 ) Other 240 — Balance as of March 31, 2017 $ 272,041 $ 714,363 The entire portion of the $714.4 million product liability accrual amount shown above is classified in the Current portion of the legal settlement accrual in the March 31, 2017 Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets . Charges related to vaginal mesh product liability and associated legal fees and other expenses for all periods presented are reported in Discontinued operations, net of tax in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations . We expect to fund into the QSFs the payments under all current settlement agreements over the remainder of 2017. As the funds are disbursed out of the QSFs from time to time, the product liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition, we may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate from the QSFs, which will also decrease the product liability accrual and decrease cash and cash equivalents. We were contacted in October 2012 regarding a civil investigation initiated by a number of state attorneys general into mesh products, including transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI. In November 2013, we received a subpoena relating to this investigation from the state of California, and we have subsequently received additional subpoenas from California and other states. We are currently cooperating with this investigation. At this time, we cannot predict or determine the outcome of this investigation or reasonably estimate the amount or range of amounts of fines or penalties, if any, that might result from a settlement or an adverse outcome from this investigation. Testosterone Cases. We and certain of our subsidiaries, including Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and hereinafter referred to as Auxilium), along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications containing testosterone, including FORTESTA ® Gel, DELATESTRYL ® , TESTIM ® , TESTOPEL ® , AVEED ® and STRAINT ® . Plaintiffs in these suits allege various personal injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries and seek compensatory and/or punitive damages, where available. In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving all testosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI, Auxilium, and other manufacturers of such products, and certain transferable cases pending in federal court were coordinated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as part of MDL No. 2545. In addition, litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County and in certain other state courts. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and we expect cases brought in federal court to be transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545. However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any such additional litigation will be brought against us. We intend to contest the litigation vigorously and to explore all options as appropriate in our best interests. As of May 2, 2017 , approximately 1,260 cases are currently pending against us; some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs. The first MDL trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM ® is set to begin in November 2017; the first trial against Auxilium in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County involving TESTIM ® is set to begin in January 2018; and the first MDL trial against EPI involving FORTESTA ® Gel is set to begin in September 2018. In November 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois entered an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss claims involving certain testosterone products that were approved pursuant to ANDAs, including TESTOPEL ® . Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of this order. In March 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion in part and entered an order permitting certain claims to go forward to the extent they are based on allegations of fraudulent off-label marketing. In November 2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois against EPI, Auxilium, and various other manufacturers of testosterone products on behalf of a proposed class of health insurance companies and other third party payors that had paid for certain testosterone products, alleging that the marketing efforts of EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers with respect to certain testosterone products constituted racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c), and other civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims. Further, the complaint alleged that EPI, Auxilium, and other defendant manufacturers violated various state consumer protection laws through their marketing of certain testosterone products and raised other state law claims. In March 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs responded by filing amended complaints, which defendants also moved to dismiss. In February 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss. The District Court declined to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims for conspiracy to commit racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) and claims for negligent misrepresentation. In April 2016, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint, which defendants moved to dismiss in June 2016. In August 2016, the court denied the motion to dismiss and we filed a response to the third amended complaint in September 2016. In October 2015, a similar civil class action complaint was filed against EPI and other defendant manufacturers in the U.S. District for the Northern District of Illinois. Similar litigation may be brought by other plaintiffs. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for this matter, if any, but we intend to contest this litigation vigorously and will explore all options as appropriate in our best interests. Unapproved Drug Litigation In September 2013, the State of Louisiana filed a petition for damages against certain of our subsidiaries, EPI and Generics Bidco I, LLC, and over 50 other pharmaceutical companies alleging the defendants or their subsidiaries marketed products that were not approved by the FDA. See State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al ., C624522 (19th Jud. Dist. La.). The State of Louisiana sought damages, fines, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs under various causes of action. In October 2015, the District Court ordered judgment for defendants on their exception for no right of action. The State of Louisiana appealed that decision and in October 2016, the Louisiana Court of Appeals, First Circuit, issued a decision affirming the dismissal as to certain counts and reversing the dismissal as to others. The State filed a petition for rehearing, which was denied by the court in December 2016. Both sides applied to Louisiana Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the First Circuit’s decision. Those writs were denied in March 2017. In March 2017, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint against our subsidiary EPI in the Chancery Court for the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, alleging that EPI marketed products that were not approved by the FDA. The State of Mississippi seeks damages, penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief under various causes of action. In April 2017, EPI removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. See State of Mississippi v. Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. , No. 3:17-CV-277 (S.D. Miss.). We intend to contest the above cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought by other plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whether any such litigation will be brought against us. We are unable to predict the outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss for this matter, if any. Opioid-Related Litigations, Subpoenas and Document Requests In June 2014, Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago filed suit in Illinois state court against multiple defendants, including our subsidiaries Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI) and EPI, for alleged violations of city ordinances and other laws relating to defendants’ alleged opioid sales and marketing practices. In June 2014, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. In December 2014, defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and in May 2015, the District Court issued an order granting that motion in part, dismissing the case as to EHSI and EPI. In August 2015, plaintiff filed its second amended complaint against multiple defendants, including EPI and EHSI. In November 2015, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2016, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss and provided plaintiff an opportunity to amend its complaint. Plaintiff filed the third amended complaint in October 2016. In December 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the re-pled claims in the third amended complaint, and filed their answers as to the claims not previously dismissed by the Court. In May 2014, a lawsuit was filed in California Superior Court (Orange County) in the name of the People of the State of California, acting by and through County Counsel for Santa Clara County and the Orange County District Attorney, against multiple defendants, including our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI (with EPI being added as part of the first amended complaint in June 2014). The complaint asserts violations of California’s statutory Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws, as well as asserting a claim for public nuisance, based on alleged misrepresentations in connection with sales and marketing of opioids, including OPANA ® . Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, restitution, civil penalties (including treble damages), abatement, an injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants, which include our subsidiaries, filed various motions attacking the pleadings, including one requesting that the Superior Court refrain from proceeding under the doctrines of primary jurisdiction and equitable abstention. That motion was granted in August 2015, and the case was stayed pending further proceedings and findings by the FDA. In June 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay and to amend the complaint. Defendants, including EHSI and EPI, opposed that motion. Following a hearing in July 2016, the court provided plaintiffs an opportunity to seek leave to file another amended complaint. In August 2016, plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to lift the stay and amend the complaint. In October 2016, the court granted, in part, plaintiffs’ renewed motion to lift the stay and the plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint. Defendants’ response to the third amended complaint is not due at this time. In December 2015, a lawsuit was filed in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi by the State of Mississippi against multiple defendants, including our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI. The complaint alleges violations of Mississippi’s Consumer Protection Act and various other claims arising out of defendants’ alleged opioid sales and marketing practices. Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, restitution, civil penalties, abatement, an injunction, and attorneys’ fees and costs. In March 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer the case from Hinds County to Rankin County. The motion to transfer was denied in February 2017. In March 2017, Defendants petitioned for an interlocutory appeal of that ruling, and that petition remains pending. The motion to dismiss also remains pending. In August 2016, the County of Suffolk, New York filed suit in New York state court against multiple defendants, including our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI, for alleged violations of state false and deceptive advertising and other statutes, public nuisance, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment based on opioid sales and marketing practices. The County of Suffolk is seeking compensatory damages, interest, costs, disbursements, punitive damages, treble damages, penalties and attorneys’ fees. Defendants, including our subsidiaries, filed motions to dismiss and to stay in January 2017. In February 2017, Broome County, New York, and Erie County, New York, filed similar suits in New York state court. In March 2017, the Boone County Commission filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia against multiple defendants, including our subsidiary Generics Bidco I, LLC, for the alleged violation of federal and state safety laws designed to monitor, detect, and prevent the diversion of controlled substances. The complaint generally seeks compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged creation of a public nuisance. With respect to the litigations brought on behalf of the City of Chicago, the People of the State of California, the State of Mississippi, the Counties of Suffolk, Broome and Erie and the Boone County Commission, we intend to contest those matters vigorously. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, for these matters but will explore all options as appropriate in our best interests. In September 2014, our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI received a Request for Information from the State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General and Reporter seeking documents and information regarding the sales and marketing of opioids, including OPANA ® ER. We are currently cooperating with the State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General and Reporter in this investigation. In August 2015, our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI received a subpoena from the State of New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General seeking documents and information regarding the sales and marketing of opioids, including OPANA ® ER. We were cooperating with the State of New Hampshire Office of the Attorney General in its investigation until we learned it was being assisted by outside counsel hired on a contingent fee basis. The New Hampshire Attorney General initiated an action in the Superior Court for the State of New Hampshire to enforce the subpoena despite this contingent fee arrangement, and we (along with other companies that had received similar subpoenas) responded by filing a motion for protective order to preclude the use of contingent fee counsel. In addition, we filed a separate motion seeking declaratory relief. In March 2016, the Superior Court granted the motion for protective order on the grounds that the contingent fee agreement was invalid as ultra vires and that the office of the Attorney General had acted outside of its statutory authority in entering into the agreement with the contingent fee counsel. In April 2016, both the New Hampshire Attorney General and the companies that received subpoenas from the New Hampshire Attorney General, including EHSI and EPI, appealed, in part, the March 2016 Superior Court order to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. Those appeals are pending. In April 2016, the New Hampshire Attorney General also entered into a new agreement with outside counsel. In response, the companies that received a subpoena from the New Hampshire Attorney General, including EHSI and EPI, moved to enforce a part of the protective order issued by the Superior Court in March 2016 that is not being appealed by EHSI and EPI. That motion was denied in August 2016. In April 2016, EHSI and EPI received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the State of Oregon seeking documents and information regarding the sales and marketing of OPANA ® ER. We are currently cooperating with the State of Oregon in its investigation. In November 2016, Endo International plc and EPI received an Administrative Subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland seeking documents and information regarding the sales and marketing of opioid products. We are currently cooperating with the State of Maryland in its investigation. In March 2017, EPI received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of New Jersey seeking documents and information regarding the sales and marketing of opioid products. We are currently cooperating with the State of New Jersey in its investigation. Antitrust Litigation and Investigations Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of LIDODERM ® have filed a number of cases against our subsidiary EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd., Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, Teikoku) and Actavis plc and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, Actavis), which was subsequently acquired by Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd and its subsidiaries (collectively, Teva) from Allergan plc (Allergan). Certain of these actions have been asserted on behalf of classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others are individual cases brought by one or more alleged direct or indirect purchasers. The complaints in these cases generally allege that EPI, Teikoku and Actavis entered into an anticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the ‘529 patent) and other patents. Some of the complaints also allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the ‘529 patent in the Orange Book as related to LIDODERM ® , that EPI and Teikoku commenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that EPI abused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizen petition and amendments solely to interfere with generic companies’ efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions of LIDODERM ® . The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2) and various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes as well as common law remedies in some states. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, issued an order in April 2014 transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation , MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The court granted plaintiffs’ motions for class certification filed on behalf of classes of direct and indirect purchasers in February 2017. Trial is currently scheduled to begin in late 2017. We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the timing or outcome of any such litigation. We expect any such cases brought in federal court to be transferred to the Northern District of California as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation . Multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA ® ER have filed cases against our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI, and other pharmaceutical companies, including Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., which we subsequently acquired, and Impax Laboratories Inc. (Impax), all of which have been transferred and coordinated for pretrial proceedings in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Some of these cases have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others have been filed on behalf of individual retailers or health care benefit plans. These cases generally allege that the agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to OPANA ® ER and EPI’s introduction of the re-formulation of OPANA ® ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2), various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well as state common law. These cases generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In February 2016, the District Court issued orders (i) denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers, (ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints and (iii) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints filed by certain retailers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints. In response to the District Court’s orders, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint to which the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss certain claims, and certain retailers also filed amended complaints. The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the indirect purchaser unjust enrichment claims arising under the laws of the states of California, Rhode Island and Illinois. We cannot predict whether or not additional cases similar to those described above will be filed by other plaintiffs or the timing or outcome of any such litigation. We |
