| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 14. 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, 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 could 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 June 30, 2018 , our accrual for loss contingencies totaled $1,160.5 million , of which $930.0 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 accruals 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 accrual for LIDODERM ® -related matters includes an estimated loss for, among other matters, settlement 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 accrual 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. Since 2008, we and certain of our subsidiaries, including American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (subsequently converted to Astora Women’s Health Holding LLC and merged into Astora Women’s Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS) and/or Astora, have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various state and federal courts in the U.S. (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 pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (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 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. 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 six months ended June 30, 2018 (in thousands): Qualified Settlement Funds Mesh Liability Accrual Balance as of January 1, 2018 $ 313,814 $ 1,087,172 Additional charges — — Cash contributions to Qualified Settlement Funds 126,400 — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (148,824 ) (148,824 ) Cash distributions to settle disputes — (12,761 ) Other (1) 1,156 4,388 Balance as of June 30, 2018 $ 292,546 $ 929,975 __________ (1) Amounts deposited in the QSFs may earn interest, which is generally used to pay administrative costs of the fund and is reflected in the table above as an increase to the QSF balance. Any interest remaining after all claims have been paid will generally be distributed to the claimants. The $4.4 million in the table above represents a reclassification adjustment for amounts previously recorded in Accounts payable and accrued expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As of June 30, 2018 , $869.2 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 $3.0 billion , $292.5 million of which remains in the QSFs as of June 30, 2018 . We expect to fund into the QSFs the remaining payments under all settlement agreements during the remainder of 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 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 July 31, 2018 , we were aware of approximately 1,254 testosterone cases (some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) pending against one or more of our subsidiaries in federal or state court. 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 November 2015, the MDL court 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 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. An MDL trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM ® took place in November 2017 and resulted in a defense verdict. A trial against Auxilium involving TESTIM ® was scheduled for January 2018 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas (PCCP) but resolved prior to trial. In June 2018, counsel for plaintiffs, on the one hand, and Auxilium and EPI, on the other, executed an MSA allowing for the resolution of all known testosterone replacement therapy product liability claims against our subsidiaries. The MSA was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was not in any way an admission of fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. The MSA is subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlement and the release of funds. Among other things, the MSA provides for the creation of a QSF into which the settlement funds will be deposited, establishes participation requirements, and allows for a reduction of the total settlement payment in the event the participation threshold is not met. Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating product use and injury as determined by a third-party special master, the dismissal of any lawsuit and the release of the claim as to us and all affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant must 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 settlement funds, amounts allocated to individual claimants and other terms of the agreement. 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, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint in April 2016, asserting civil claims for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and negligent misrepresentation based on defendants’ marketing of certain testosterone products. The court denied a motion to dismiss this complaint in August 2016. In July 2018, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for class certification. This lawsuit is not part of the 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. The First Circuit Court of Appeals denied defendants’ writ application in July 2018. 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. In March 2018, the court signed an Agreed Order dismissing EPI and granting the State leave to file a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint names our subsidiary Generics International (US), Inc. (Generics) as the defendant. In April 2018, Generics moved to dismiss on various grounds. 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 certain of our subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), EPI, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (Par), Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Generics Bidco I, LLC and, in some instances, the Company, as well as 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 July 31, 2018 , the cases of which we were aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 11 cases filed by states; approximately 1,221 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 78 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers; and approximately 26 cases filed by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions. 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). In March 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest in the case, and in April 2018 it filed a motion to participate in settlement discussions and as a friend of the court, which the MDL court has granted. The MDL court has issued a series of case management orders permitting motions to dismiss addressing threshold legal issues in certain cases, setting a trial date in 2019 for three cases originally filed in the Northern District of Ohio, allowing certain discovery and establishing certain other deadlines and procedures, among other things. Other cases remain pending in various state courts. In some jurisdictions, such as Connecticut, Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania and Texas, certain state court cases have been transferred to a single court within their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The state cases are generally at the pleading and/or discovery stage. 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. 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. 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: Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Our subsidiaries are cooperating with this investigation. We understand that these 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. These states include New Hampshire (subpoenas received by EPI in August 2015 and December 2017); 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, we 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 to Par Pharmaceuticals. 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. We are 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. In May 2018, we and our subsidiary Par each received a CID from the U.S. Department of Justice in relation to a False Claims Act investigation concerning whether generic pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in price fixing and market allocation agreements, paid illegal remuneration and caused the submission of false claims. We are 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. Certain cases alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to various generic pharmaceutical products have been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Among the lawsuits consolidated and/or coordinated in the MDL, the earliest lawsuits naming the Company and/or its subsidiaries were filed in November 2016 and related to digoxin and doxycycline. The private plaintiffs in the MDL include alleged direct purchasers, end-payers, and indirect purchaser resellers, and they purport to represent not only themselves but also all others similarly situated. At the MDL court’s direction, in August 2017, each group of private plaintiffs (direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers) filed separate consolidated amended class action complaints as to each of 18 products, except with respect to one product (propranolol) direct purchaser plaintiffs stated their intention to proceed on a consolidated amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York prior to MDL transfer (the Southern District of New York had denied a motion to dismiss this complaint). Each of these consolidated amended complaints relates to one product, and our subsidiary PPI was named as a defendant in complaints relating to six products: digoxin, doxycycline hyclate, divalproex ER, propranolol, baclofen and amitriptyline hydrochloride. The MDL court divided the various cases into three separate product-based tranches for certain administrative and scheduling purposes, including briefing on motions to dismiss. As to the six products in the first tranche (including digoxin, doxycycline hyclate and divalproex ER), defendants filed motions to dismiss in October 2017, and these motions remain pending. Defendants also asserted that they are entitled to move the MDL court to dismiss the propranolol direct purchaser consolidated amended complaint. The MDL court has allowed certain targeted discovery. In December 2016, the Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, leading a coalition of 20 state attorneys general, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to doxycycline hyclate delayed release and glyburide against certain manufacturers of those products. The Company and its subsidiaries were not named in that complaint, or in an amended complaint filed on behalf of 40 states in March 2017, or in a separate lawsuit filed by four more states and the District of Columbia in the same court in July 2017. In August 2017, the state cases were transferred to MDL No. 2724. In October 2017, the state plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to (1) consolidate their two cases, (2) add Alaska and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as plaintiffs and (3) assert additional claims against existing and new defendants. In June 2018, the MDL court granted this motion, and the state plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. The amended complaint adds new allegations and claims against 14 new defendants, including our subsidiary Par, relating to 13 additional products. The amended complaint alleges anticompetitive conduct by our subsidiary with respect to doxycycline monohydrate. It also alleges that all defendants engaged in an overarching conspiracy to restrain trade across the generic pharmaceutical industry and seeks to hold all defendants, including our subsidiary, jointly and severally liable for harm caused by alleged anticompetitive activity concerning each of the 15 drugs at issue. The amended complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, disgorgement and other equitable relief, compensatory and treble damages, civil penalties, costs and attorneys’ fees. In January 2018, The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company LP filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against PPI, as well as numerous other manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals, alleging anticompetitive conduct relating to 30 separate generic pharmaceutical products, including seven products allegedly manufactured by PPI: digoxin, doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline monohydrate, divalproex ER, propranolol, baclofen and amitriptyline hydrochloride. This lawsuit has been assigned to the MDL court. The complaint alleges an overarching conspiracy among all named defendants to engage in price-fixing for all 30 products, as well as product-specific conspiracies relating to each individual product, in violation of federal antitrust law. The complaint seeks monetary damages, including treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. In June 2018, direct purchaser, end-payer and indirect purchaser reseller plaintiffs filed additional class action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging anticompetitive conduct relating to approximately 15 generic pharmaceuticals (generally those that were the subject of the state plaintiffs’ amended complaint). These lawsuits have also been assigned to the MDL court. The end payer and indirect purchaser reseller complaints name our subsidiaries PPI, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and other companies, as defendants. The direct purchaser complaint names our subsidiary Par and other companies as defendants. As to our subsidiaries, the complaints allege anticompetitive conduct with respect to doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline monohydrate, nystatin cream and/or zoledronic acid. These complaints also seek to hold all defendants jointly and severally liable for alleged anticompetitive conduct relating to all products identified in the complaints on the basis of an “overarching conspiracy” theory similar to that asserted by the state plaintiffs. In August 2018, Humana Inc. |
