| 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, consumer protection and commercial matters. While we cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings and we intend to vigorously prosecute or defend our position, as appropriate, 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. We believe that certain settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to certain product liability or other matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under our 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 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. As of September 30, 2017 , our reserve for loss contingencies totaled $1,217.0 million , of which $1,189.6 million relates to our liability accrual for vaginal mesh cases and other mesh-related matters. 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 and Related Matters 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 and other related matters are described below in more detail. Vaginal Mesh. 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 update 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. 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 federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia (MDL No. 2325)), and in Canada and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI. In various class action and individual complaints, plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries including chronic pain, incontinence, 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 agreements to resolve up to approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled or controlled by the participating counsel. These MSAs and other agreements were entered into at various times between June 2013 and August 2017, were solely by way of compromise and settlement and were 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 qualified settlement funds (QSFs) into which funds may be deposited pursuant to certain schedules set forth in those agreements. All MSAs have participation requirements regarding the claims represented by each law firm party to the MSA. 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 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. In June 2017, the MDL court entered a case management order which, among other things, requires plaintiffs in newly-filed MDL cases to provide expert disclosures on specific causation within one hundred twenty (120) days of filing a claim (the Order). Under the Order, a plaintiff's failure to meet the foregoing deadline may be grounds for the entry of judgment against such plaintiff. In July 2017, a similar order was entered in Minnesota state court. Beginning in the second quarter of 2017, the Company aggressively pursued a settlement strategy in connection with the mesh litigation. Consequently, the Company increased its mesh liability accrual by $775.5 million in the second quarter of 2017, which is expected to cover approximately 22,000 known U.S. mesh claims, subject to a claims validation process for all resolved claims, as well as all of the international mesh liability claims of which the Company is aware and other mesh-related matters. This increase reflected the Company’s conclusion that a loss was probable with respect to all unsettled mesh-related matters of which we were aware, and our current liability accrual applies to such matters. Although the Company believes it has appropriately estimated the probable total amount of loss associated with all matters as of the date of this report, it is reasonably possible that further claims may be filed or asserted and adjustments to our liability accrual may be required. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. The following table presents the changes in the QSFs and mesh liability accrual balance during the nine months ended September 30, 2017 (in thousands): Qualified Settlement Funds Mesh Liability Accrual Balance as of January 1, 2017 $ 275,987 $ 963,117 Additional charges — 775,474 Cash contributions to Qualified Settlement Funds 623,128 — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (545,379 ) (545,379 ) Cash distributions to settle disputes — (3,625 ) Other 1,114 — Balance as of September 30, 2017 $ 354,850 $ 1,189,587 As of September 30, 2017 , $861.8 million of the mesh liability accrual amount shown above is classified in the Current portion of the legal settlement accrual in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets , with the remainder classified as Long-term legal settlement accrual, less current portion. Charges related to vaginal mesh 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 . To date, the Company has made total mesh liability payments of approximately $2.85 billion , $354.9 million of which remains in the QSFs as of September 30, 2017 . We expect to fund into the QSFs the remaining payments under all settlement agreements during 2017, 2018 and 2019. As the funds are disbursed out of the QSFs from time to time, the 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 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 these investigations. At this time, we cannot predict the ultimate outcome of these matters and we are unable to estimate the possible range of any additional losses that could be incurred, which could be material to the Company’s operating results and cash flows for the period in which they are resolved or become estimable. Testosterone. 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 multiple lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of prescription medications containing testosterone, including FORTESTA ® Gel, DELATESTRYL ® , TESTIM ® , TESTOPEL ® , AVEED ® and STRIANT ® . Plaintiffs in these suits generally allege various personal injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries, and seek compensatory and/or punitive damages, where available. As of November 1, 2017, approximately 1,290 testosterone cases (some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) are currently pending against one or more of our subsidiaries. Many of these cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (MDL No. 2545). In addition, there are cases pending against EPI and/or Auxilium in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County and in certain other state courts. In November 2015, the MDL court entered an order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss claims involving certain testosterone products that were approved pursuant to Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), including TESTOPEL ® . Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and clarification of this order. In March 2016, the MDL 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. 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. 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. The first MDL trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM ® began in November 2017, with another scheduled to follow in April 2018; the first trial against Auxilium in the Court of Common Pleas for Philadelphia County involving TESTIM ® is set to begin in January 2018, with others currently scheduled to follow in July 2018 and September 2018; and the first MDL trial against EPI involving FORTESTA ® Gel is set to begin in September 2018. The MDL also includes a lawsuit filed in November 2014 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 claim to have paid for certain testosterone products. After a series of motions to dismiss, plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint in April 2016, asserting civil claims for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and for negligent misrepresentation based on defendants’ marketing of certain testosterone products. Defendants moved to dismiss this complaint in June 2016, but the court denied the motion in August 2016. We answered the complaint in September 2016, and the case is currently in discovery. Similar litigation may be brought by other plaintiffs. A second, similar lawsuit filed in October 2015 was voluntarily dismissed in September 2017. 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 for these matters, 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, including EPI, and more than 50 other pharmaceutical companies in Louisiana state court (19th Judicial District) alleging that the defendants or their subsidiaries marketed products that were not approved by the FDA. The State 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 appealed, and in October 2016 the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the dismissal as to the State’s Medicaid Assistance Program Integrity Law (MAPIL) and Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (LUTPA) claims but affirmed the dismissal as to the State’s other claims. The State’s petition for rehearing was denied in December 2016. Both sides applied to the Louisiana Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari to review the First Circuit’s decision. Those writs were denied in March 2017. In May 2017, defendants filed exceptions for no cause of action in the district court. In August 2017, the court sustained defendants’ exception as to the MAPIL claim but overruled defendants’ exception as to the LUTPA claim. The State then filed a motion seeking reconsideration with respect to the MAPIL claim, and defendants filed a motion for clarification with respect to the court’s ruling on the LUTPA claim. In October 2017, the court denied the State’s motion and entered final judgment against the State with respect to the MAPIL claim. The court also granted defendants’ motion for clarification and dismissed the State’s LUTPA claim insofar as it sought civil penalties for alleged violations occurring before June 2, 2006. In October 2017, defendants applied for a supervisory writ to the Louisiana First Circuit Court of Appeals on the district court’s August 2017 order overruling defendants’ exception on the State’s LUTPA claim. In March 2017, the State of Mississippi filed a complaint against our subsidiary EPI in Mississippi state court (Hinds County Chancery Court) alleging that EPI marketed products that were not approved by the FDA. The complaint seeks damages, penalties, attorneys’ fees, costs and other relief under various causes of action. In April 2017, EPI removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. In May 2017, the State moved to remand the case to state court, and that motion was granted in October 2017. 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 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 for these matters, if any. Opioid-Related Matters Multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental entities and, in some instances, private plaintiffs have filed suit against our subsidiaries Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI) and EPI, in some instances the Company and/or our subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), and/or various other opioid manufacturers, distributors and/or others, asserting claims relating to defendants’ alleged opioid sales, marketing and/or distribution practices. The first such case involving the Company or its subsidiaries was filed in May 2014 in California state 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. In August 2015, the case was stayed pending further proceedings and findings by the FDA. In October 2016, the court granted, in part, plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay. Plaintiffs’ current complaint (their fourth amended complaint, filed in July 2017) asserts violations of California’s statutory unfair competition and false advertising laws, as well as a claim for public nuisance, based on alleged misrepresentations in connection with defendants’ sales and marketing of opioids, including OPANA ® ER. Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, restitution, civil penalties (including treble damages), abatement, an injunction, attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2017, defendants filed various motions challenging the fourth amended complaint, including motions to dismiss, which remain pending. Another such case was filed in Illinois state court by the Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago in June 2014 and removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. After various motions to dismiss were granted in part, the city filed its third amended complaint in October 2016. In December 2016, defendants moved to dismiss the city’s claims for consumer fraud (unfair practices), false statements, false claims, civil conspiracy, cost recovery, insurance fraud, and unjust enrichment, each of which had been previously dismissed by the court but were repleaded in the third amended complaint; those motions to dismiss remain pending. Defendants also answered the city’s claims for consumer fraud (deceptive practices) and misrepresentation. The case is currently in discovery. All other such cases remain at the pleading stage, although in some cases discovery has begun while the pleading issues are resolved. The cases of which we are currently aware include, but are not limited to, cases filed by the states of Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, and New Mexico; cases filed by or on behalf of at least 34 Kentucky counties; cases filed by at least 19 Ohio counties; a proposed class action filed on behalf of all Ohio County Departments of Job and Family Services and Ohio County Children’s Services Boards that expended federal, state and local funds on medical, social services, child services, foster care and adopted services on behalf of Ohio children as a result of opioids; cases filed by at least 28 Wisconsin counties; cases filed by at least 12 New York counties; cases filed by at least eight Illinois counties on behalf of themselves as well as all the People of the State of Illinois; and cases filed by additional counties, cities and/or other governmental entities in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas and Washington. Certain of the Tennessee cases include claims by certain Baby Does who were allegedly born addicted to opioids. The Louisiana cases include a lawsuit filed in September 2017 by the Louisiana Department of Health, through the Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Health. In October 2017, the Louisiana Attorney General moved, on behalf of the State, to supersede the Louisiana Department of Health in the case. In July 2017, the State of New York Supreme Court Litigation Coordinating Panel granted defendants’ motion to coordinate nine New York county cases in Suffolk County Supreme Court for pretrial purposes; other New York county cases may also be coordinated in that court. In September 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court issued an order consolidating the first two Illinois county cases in the Circuit Court of Jersey County for pretrial proceedings, and in October 2017, the consolidated cases were reassigned to a judge in Sangamon County. In November 2017, the Illinois Supreme Court denied without prejudice a request to consolidate a third Illinois County case with the first two for pretrial proceedings. The complaints in these cases generally assert a variety of claims, including claims for alleged violations of consumer protection, Medicaid fraud, unfair trade practices, racketeering, public nuisance, and/or drug dealer liability statutes, and/or common law claims for public nuisance, fraud, negligence and/or unjust enrichment. These claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sales and marketing of opioid products, and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps to prevent abuse and diversion. Plaintiffs generally seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief, compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages, restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys’ fees and/or costs. In addition to the foregoing suits, 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. The case is currently stayed as to Generics Bidco I, LLC, pending resolution of motions to dismiss filed by certain other pharmaceutical distributor defendants. In June 2017, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court of the Western District of Arkansas against our subsidiaries EPI and EHSI and other opioid manufacturers by Michael Ray Lewis on behalf of himself and a proposed class of all persons prescribed defendants’ opioids in the state of Arkansas. The complaint generally alleges that defendants violated Arkansas deceptive trade practices law and have been unjustly enriched by their alleged opioid sales and marketing practices, and seeks an order requiring defendants to fund a medical monitoring program to identify problematic opioid use. The complaint also seeks damages, restitution, disgorgement, other injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2017, defendants filed various motions challenging the pleadings, including motions to dismiss, which remain pending. In October 2017, the court stayed all further proceedings in the case for up to 90 days pending a ruling by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) on the motion filed before the JPML in September 2017, as described below. In August 2017, a wrongful death action was filed by Linda Hughes as mother of decedent Nathan Hughes against our subsidiary PPI and other defendants in Missouri state court (Circuit Court for the City of St. Louis). In addition to asserting malpractice claims against the decedent’s medical providers, the complaint asserts class action claims against certain manufacturer defendants, including our subsidiary, for strict product liability, negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation and violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act. The proposed class is defined as Missouri residents whose consumption of opioids allegedly caused or contributed to cause their deaths. The complaint generally seeks compensatory and other relief. In September 2017, defendants removed the case to federal court. In October 2017, a wrongful death action was filed by the estate of Bruce Brockel by and through Donna Brockel against our subsidiary EPI and the Company, as well as other defendants, in Alabama state court (Circuit Court of Mobile County). The complaint asserts malpractice claims against the decedent’s medical providers, as well as claims against EPI, the Company, and other defendants for negligence, wantonness, product liability, fraud/misrepresentation, suppression/concealment/deceit, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy. The complaint generally seeks compensatory and punitive damages, as well as other relief. In September 2017, a complaint against EPI and the Company was filed in Pennsylvania state court (Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) by the Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, on behalf of itself and a putative class of Pennsylvania entities that purchased, reimbursed or paid for the cost of opioids from 1997 to the present. The complaint generally asserts claims for alleged violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, unjust enrichment, breach of implied warranty and civil conspiracy, and seeks direct and consequential damages, statutory damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. A similar complaint was filed in October 2017 against EPI and EHSI and other defendants by IBEW Local 38 Health and Welfare Fund in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. In that case, plaintiff brings claims on behalf of itself and a putative class of unions and health and welfare funds that between October 2011 and the present paid for Ohio opioid prescriptions more than 90 days in length for their employees or members. The complaint generally asserts claims for alleged violations of state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, unjust enrichment and negligence, and seeks damages for the amounts paid for opioid prescriptions, punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2017, certain governmental entity plaintiffs whose cases against opioid manufacturers and/or distributors are pending in federal court filed a motion before the JPML. That motion, filed under the caption In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation , requests that certain cases pending in federal court be transferred either to the Southern District of Ohio or to the Southern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings. In October 2017, various other parties to these cases filed responses to the motion. Many parties, including our subsidiaries, support coordination but have suggested alternative venues for transfer, including the Northern District of Illinois, where the City of Chicago case is pending. We have also suggested that additional cases pending in federal court, including the City of Chicago, Lewis and Hughes cases discussed above, be included in any MDL. The JPML’s hearing on the motion is scheduled for November 2017. We intend to contest the lawsuits identified above vigorously. In addition to the lawsuits described above, the Company and/or its subsidiaries have received certain subpoenas, Civil Investigative Demands (CIDs) and informal requests for information concerning the sale, marketing and/or distribution of opioid products, including the following: In September 2017, the Department of Justice for the State of Oregon and the Office of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts issued CIDs to EHSI and EPI on behalf of a multistate group including the District of Columbia and the following additional states: Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Our subsidiaries are currently cooperating in this investigation. We understand that these recent CIDs supersede prior subpoenas and/or CIDs issued by certain of the foregoing states. In November 2017, we were informed that New Jersey is no longer participating in the multistate investigation. Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of the multistate group. In August 2015, our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI received a subpoena from the New Hampshire Attorney General’s office seeking documents and information regarding sales and marketing of opioids, including OPANA ® ER. We were cooperating with the investigation until we learned that the Attorney General was being assisted by outside counsel hired on a contingency fee basis. The Attorney General initiated an action in New Hampshire Superior Court to enforce the subpoena despite this contingency 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 contingency 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 contingency fee agreement was invalid as ultra vires and that the Attorney General’s office had acted outside of its statutory authority in entering into the agreement with the contingency fee counsel. In April 2016, both the Attorney General and the companies that had received subpoenas, including EHSI and EPI, appealed, in part, the March 2016 Superior Court order to the New Hampshire Supreme Court. In June 2017, the New Hampshire Supreme Court reversed the Superior Court’s protective order ruling and remanded the case to the Superior Court and we resumed cooperation with the investigation. In October 2017, we filed a petition for certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision. In August 2017, the Company, EHSI and EPI received a CID from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Washington seeking documents and information regarding the sales and marketing of opioid products. We are currently cooperating in the investigation. In November 2017, our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI received a civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General for the State of Indiana seeking documents and information |
