| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 15. 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 (the 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 $7.5 million , $5.6 million and $6.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 . 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 and 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 them. 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 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 materially 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, 2018 , our accrual for loss contingencies totaled $905.1 million , of which $748.6 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 liability accrual of approximately $200 million related to testosterone-related product liability matters and LIDODERM ® -related antitrust 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 (defined below), which matters are 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 (defined below) 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 considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash equivalents. 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. In June 2018, at the request of the MDL court, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation entered a minute order suspending the transfer of cases into the MDL. Subsequently, the MDL court issued a pretrial order discontinuing the direct filing of claims in MDL No. 2325. The MDL court also issued similar orders in other MDLs involving claims against other mesh manufacturers. 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, fact and expert discovery is ongoing in certain cases that have not settled, and it is reasonably possible that further claims may be filed or asserted and that 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 balances during the year ended December 31, 2018 (in thousands): Qualified Settlement Funds Mesh Liability Accrual Balance as of January 1, 2018 $ 313,814 $ 1,087,172 Additional charges — 34,000 Cash contributions to Qualified Settlement Funds 336,648 — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (353,032 ) (353,032 ) Cash distributions to settle disputes — (25,222 ) Other (1) 2,303 5,688 Balance as of December 31, 2018 $ 299,733 $ 748,606 __________ (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 and Mesh Liability Accrual balances. Any interest remaining after all claims have been paid will generally be distributed to the claimants who participated in that settlement. The $5.7 million in the table above also includes a second quarter 2018 reclassification adjustment of $4.4 million for accrued interest amounts previously recorded in Accounts payable and accrued expenses in the Consolidated Balance Sheets . While the timing of the resolution of certain of the matters included in this mesh liability accrual remains uncertain, as of December 31, 2018, the entire liability accrual amount is classified in the Current portion of the legal settlement accrual in the Consolidated Balance Sheets . 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 $3.3 billion , $299.7 million of which remains in the QSFs as of December 31, 2018 . We currently expect to fund into the QSFs the remaining payments under all settlement agreements during 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 various 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 February 21, 2019 , we were aware of approximately 1,105 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. Most 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 ). 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 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 that 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 included 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. This lawsuit is not part of the settlement described above. 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 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. In February 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 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. Opioid-Related Matters Since 2014, multiple U.S. states, counties, other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed suit against us and/or certain of our subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), EPI, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 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 February 21, 2019 , the cases of which we were aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 12 cases filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 1,711 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 121 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 56 cases filed by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions. In addition to the litigation in the U.S., in August 2018, an action against Paladin Labs, EPI, the Company and various other manufacturers and distributors was commenced in British Columbia on behalf of all federal, provincial and territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids. Many of the U.S. 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 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 October 2019 for the claims of two Ohio counties, 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, South Carolina 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 with certain of these cases scheduled for trial beginning in 2020. 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: Various state attorneys general have served subpoenas and/or CIDs on EHSI and/or EPI. 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 FDA. 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 addressed to Par Pharmaceuticals. The subpoena requested documents and information focused primarily on product and pricing information relating to the authorized generic version of Lanoxin (digoxin) oral tablets and generic doxycycline products, and on communications with competitors and others regarding those products. We are cooperating with the investigation. In May 2018, we and our subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. 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. Since November 2016, various private plaintiffs and state attorneys general have filed cases against our subsidiary PPI and/or, in some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC and/or Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., as well as other pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some instances, other corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic pharmaceutical products. These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers, 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). The various complaints generally assert claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages, treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies. With respect to our subsidiaries, the allegations in the various complaints focus on amitriptyline, baclofen, digoxin, divalproex ER, doxycycline hyclate, doxycycline monohydrate, nystatin, propranolol and/or zoledronic acid. Other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies involving various combinations of these and/or other products. Under these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to hold all alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly and severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged conspiracy, not just harms related to the products manufactured and/or sold by a particular defendant. In October 2018, the MDL court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss federal antitrust claims relating to digoxin, divalproex ER and doxycycline hyclate, among other products. In February 2019, the MDL dismissed certain state law claims but allowed others to proceed. In February 2019, the defendants moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ overarching conspiracy claims. The MDL court has also allowed certain discovery. 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. Other Antitrust Matters Beginning in November 2013, multiple direct and indirect purchasers of LIDODERM ® filed a number of cases against our subsidiary EPI and other pharmaceutical companies generally alleging that they had entered into an anticompetitive agreement to restrain trade through the settlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 5,827,529 (the ‘529 patent) and other patents. The complaints asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2), and/or various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes, as well as common law claims, and generally sought damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. The cases were consolidated and/or coordinated in April 2014 in a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (MDL No. 2521 ). The MDL court certified classes of direct and indirect purchasers in February 2017. EPI settled with certain opt-out retailer plaintiffs in October 2017. In September 2018, the court approved EPI’s settlement with the class plaintiffs and entered judgment dismissing the class cases with prejudice. In connection with the settlements, several indirect purchasers which previously had opted out were permitted to rejoin the class. The class settlement agreements provide for aggregate payments of approximately $100 million . As of February 21, 2019 , EPI had paid approximately $70 million of this total, including approximately $60 million in 2018 and approximately $10 million in February 2019. Beginning in June 2014, multiple direct and indirect purchasers of OPANA ® ER filed cases against our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI and other pharmaceutical companies, including Impax Laboratories, LLC (formerly Impax Laboratories, Inc. and referred to herein as Impax) and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., which our subsidiary EPI had acquired. Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others were filed on behalf of individual retailers or health care benefit plans. All cases have been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (MDL No. 2580). Plaintiffs generally allege that an agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patent infringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining to OPANA ® ER and EPI’s introduction of reformulated OPANA ® ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, various state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law. Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In February 2016, the MDL court issued orders (i) denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchasers, (ii) denying in part and granting in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims of the indirect purchasers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints and (iii) granting defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaints filed by certain retailers, but giving them permission to file amended complaints. In response to the MDL court’s orders, the indirect purchasers filed an amended complaint to which the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss certain claims, and certain retailers also filed amended complaints. The court has dismissed the indirect purchaser unjust enrichment claims arising under the laws of the states of California, Rhode Island and Illinois. The cases are currently in discovery. We will continue to vigorously defend these matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Beginning in February 2009, the FTC and certain private plaintiffs, including distributors and retailers, filed suit against our subsidiary Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (since June 2016, Endo Generics Holdings, Inc., and referred to in this Commitments and Contingencies note as EGHI) and other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of their settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of AndroGel ® . Generally, the complaints seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The cases have been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (MDL No. 2084). In September 2012, the MDL court granted summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs’ claims of sham litigation. In May 2016, plaintiffs representing a putative class of indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. In February 2017, the FTC voluntarily dismissed its claims against EGHI with prejudice. Claims by certain alleged direct purchasers or their assignees are still pending against EGHI and other defendants. In June 2018, the MDL court granted in part and denied in part various summary judgment and evidentiary motions filed by defendants. In particular, the court rejected two of direct purchasers’ three causation theories, rejected damages claims related to AndroGel ® 1.62% and granted in part a motion seeking to exclude part of plaintiffs’ proposed manufacturing expert’s opinions. The motions were denied in all other respects, and the court denied a motion for reconsideration, or in the alternative leave to file an interlocutory appeal, in October 2018. In July 2018, the district court denied certain plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a direct purchaser class. We will continue to vigorously defend these matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Beginning in May 2018, multiple alleged direct and indirect purchasers filed complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against PPI, EPI and/or us, as well as others, alleging a conspiracy to delay generic competition and mon |
