| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 14. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Manufacturing, Supply and Other Service Agreements Our subsidiaries contract with various third party manufacturers, suppliers and service providers to provide raw materials used in our subsidiaries’ products and semi-finished and finished goods, as well as certain packaging, labeling services, customer service support, warehouse and distribution services. If, for any reason, we are unable to obtain sufficient quantities of any of the finished goods or raw materials or components required for our products or services needed to conduct our business, it could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In addition to the manufacturing and supply agreements described above, we have agreements with various companies for clinical development services. Although we have no reason to believe that the parties to these agreements will not meet their obligations, failure by any of these third parties to honor their contractual obligations may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Jubilant HollisterStier Laboratories LLC (JHS) During the second quarter of 2016, we entered into a new agreement with JHS (JHS Agreement). Pursuant to the JHS Agreement, JHS fills and lyophilizes the XIAFLEX ® bulk drug substance, which is manufactured by the Company, and produces sterile diluent. The initial term of the JHS agreement is three years, with automatic renewal provisions thereafter for subsequent one-year terms, unless or until either party provides notification prior to expiration of the then current term of the contract. The Company is required to purchase a specified percentage of its total forecasted volume of XIAFLEX ® from JHS each year, unless JHS is unable to supply XIAFLEX ® within the timeframe established under such forecasts. Amounts purchased pursuant to the JHS Agreement were $5.6 million and $6.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016 . Amounts purchased in 2015 were not material. Milestones and Royalties See Note 11. License and Collaboration Agreements for a description of future milestone and royalty commitments pursuant to our material acquisitions, license and collaboration agreements. 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, there can be no assurance that we will be successful or obtain any requested relief and 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 December 31, 2017 , our reserve for loss contingencies totaled $1,298.2 million , of which $1,087.2 million relates to our liability accrual for vaginal mesh cases and other mesh-related matters. During the fourth quarter of 2017, the Company recorded a total increase to its legal reserves of approximately $200 million related to testosterone-related product liability matters and LIDODERM ® -related antitrust matters, which reflects the Company’s conclusion that a loss is probable with respect to these matters. The reserve for LIDODERM ® -related matters includes an estimated loss for, among other matters, a settlement in principle of all remaining claims filed against EPI in multidistrict litigation (MDL) No. 2521, which is further discussed below under the heading “ Other Antitrust Matters .” The testosterone-related reserve includes an estimated loss for, among other matters, all testosterone-related product liability cases filed in MDL No. 2545 and in other courts. These cases are further discussed below under the heading “ Product Liability and 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 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 and 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 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 January 2018, a representative proceeding (class action) was filed in the Federal Court of Australia against American Medical Systems, LLC. In the 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 the present, 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 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 year ended December 31, 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 668,306 — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (632,176 ) (632,176 ) Cash distributions to settle disputes — (19,243 ) Other 1,697 — Balance as of December 31, 2017 $ 313,814 $ 1,087,172 As of December 31, 2017 , $876.7 million of the mesh liability accrual amount shown above is classified in the Current portion of the legal settlement accrual in the 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 Consolidated Statements of Operations . To date, the Company has made total mesh liability payments of approximately $2.9 billion , $313.8 million of which remains in the QSFs as of December 31, 2017 . We expect to fund into the QSFs the remaining payments under all settlement agreements during 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. We will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved claims and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any additional losses that could be incurred. Testosterone. Various manufacturers of prescription medications containing testosterone, including our subsidiaries Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and hereinafter referred to as Auxilium), have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits alleging personal injury resulting from the use of such medications, including FORTESTA ® Gel, DELATESTRYL ® , TESTIM ® , TESTOPEL ® , AVEED ® and STRIANT ® . Plaintiffs in these suits generally allege various personal injuries, including pulmonary embolism, stroke or other vascular and/or cardiac injuries, and seek compensatory and/or punitive damages, where available. As of February 20, 2018 , we were aware of approximately 1,300 testosterone cases (some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) 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 Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (PCCP) 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. The first MDL trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM ® took place in November 2017 and resulted in a defense verdict. The first PCCP trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM ® was scheduled for January 2018 but resolved prior to trial. The next PCCP trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM ® is set for July 2018, with approximately fourteen other PCCP trials involving one or more of our subsidiaries scheduled to follow by January 2019; in some of these cases, another pharmaceutical manufacturer is also named as a defendant. In February 2018, counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for Auxilium and EPI signed a memorandum of understanding regarding a potential settlement, subject to certain contingencies and conditions. The MDL court subsequently entered a case management order directing that proceedings involving these parties be temporarily stayed so that the parties may devote their efforts to finalizing a master settlement agreement. A fourth quarter 2017 increase to the Company’s legal reserves includes, among other things, an estimated loss for all testosterone-related product liability claims filed in MDL No. 2545 and in other courts. Although the Company believes it has appropriately estimated the probable total amount of loss associated with testosterone-related product liability 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 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 payers 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. The court denied a motion to dismiss this complaint in August 2016 and the case is currently in discovery. In November 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to certify a nationwide class of third party payers. This lawsuit is not part of the potential settlement described above. We will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved claims and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any additional losses that could be incurred. 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 and seeking damages, fines, penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs under various causes of action. In October 2015, the district court entered 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 and seeking 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. In November 2017, EPI filed a motion to dismiss the State’s complaint on various grounds. In January 2018, the State filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint. In February 2018, following an unopposed motion by the State, the court consolidated the State’s case against EPI with five substantially similar cases brought by the State against other defendants. The consolidation is solely for purposes of coordinated pretrial proceedings and discovery, not for trial. We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Opioid-Related Matters Since 2014, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed suit against our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI, in some instances the Company and/or our subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), and/or various other manufacturers, distributors and/or others, asserting claims relating to defendants’ alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain of our products. As of February 20, 2018 , the cases of which we were aware include, but are not limited to, cases filed by the states of Delaware, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico and Ohio; approximately 465 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Puerto Rico; approximately 25 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers; and approximately eight cases alleging personal injury and/or wrongful death. We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Many of these cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (MDL No. 2804). Other cases remain pending in various state courts. Certain cases filed in Connecticut, Illinois and New York state courts have been transferred to a single court within their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Defendants have filed motions seeking similar relief in Pennsylvania. The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims including, but not limited to, claims for alleged violations of public nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability statutes and/or common law claims for public nuisance, fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust enrichment. The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription opioid medications 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, costs and/or other relief. Certain of the cases are brought as putative class actions. Defendants, including the company’s subsidiaries, have filed motions to dismiss in certain cases. For the most part, these motions remain pending. In a case filed by the City of Chicago in June 2014, defendants have answered the city’s claims for consumer fraud (deceptive practices) and misrepresentation; defendants’ motion to dismiss other claims remains pending. The case is now part of MDL 2804. In a case 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, following a hearing in January 2018, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the fourth amended complaint but struck certain material from that complaint. In February 2018, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file a fifth amended complaint. 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. In December 2017, the case was transferred to MDL 2804 for pretrial purposes. 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 prescription opioid medications, 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 which we understand currently includes 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, Nebraska, Nevada, 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 with this investigation. We understand that these recent CIDs superseded prior subpoenas and/or CIDs issued by certain of the foregoing states. Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of the multistate group. For example, in August 2015, our subsidiary 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 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. We resumed cooperation with the investigation and in December 2017, the Attorney General issued a second subpoena to EPI seeking additional documents and information regarding sales and marketing of opioids. In October 2017, we filed a petition for certiorari seeking U.S. Supreme Court review of the New Hampshire Supreme Court’s decision. Other states investigating outside of the multistate group include New Jersey (subpoena received by EPI in March 2017); Washington (CID received by the Company, EHSI and EPI in August 2017); Indiana (CID received by EHSI and EPI in November 2017); Montana (CID received by EHSI and EPI in January 2018); Alaska (CID received by EPI in February 2018); and South Carolina (CID received by EHSI and EPI in February 2018). We are cooperating with these investigations. In January 2018, our subsidiary EPI received a federal grand jury subpoena from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida in connection with an investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida in conjunction with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The subpoena seeks information related to OPANA ® ER and other oxymorphone products. EPI is cooperating with the investigation. Similar investigations may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded or result in litigation. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Generic Drug Pricing Matters In December 2014, our subsidiary Par received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The subpoena requested documents and information focused primarily on product and pricing information relating to Par’s authorized generic version of Lanoxin (digoxin) oral tablets and Par’s generic doxycycline products, and on communications with competitors and others regarding those products. Par is cooperating with the investigation. In December 2015, EPI received interrogatories and a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office requesting documents and information regarding pricing of certain of generic products, including doxycycline hyclate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate, methotrexate sodium and oxybutynin chloride. EPI is cooperating with this investigation. We are unable to predict the outcome of the foregoing investigations, which may involve additional requests for information or result in litigation. In addition, investigations or litigations similar to these matters described above may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are also unable to predict 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. Since April 2017, certain private plaintiff cases alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to |
