| 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 a material 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 an 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 $8.6 million , $7.5 million and $5.6 million for the years ended December 31, 2019, 2018 and 2017 , respectively. Milestones and Royalties See Note 11. License and Collaboration Agreements for a description of future milestone and royalty commitments pursuant to our material 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, including, among others, those relating to product liability, intellectual property, regulatory compliance, consumer protection, tax 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. An adverse outcome in any of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, 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 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 realization of the potential claim for recovery is considered probable. Amounts recovered under our insurance policies could be materially less than stated coverage limits and may not be adequate to cover damages, other relief 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, 2019 , our accrual for loss contingencies totaled $513.0 million , the most significant components of which relate to product liability and related matters associated with vaginal mesh. 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. While the timing of the resolution of certain of the matters accrued for as loss contingencies remains uncertain and could extend beyond 12 months , as of December 31, 2019 , the entire liability accrual amount is classified in the Current portion of legal settlement accrual in the Consolidated Balance Sheets . 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, and in Canada, Australia and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of certain products of our subsidiaries, including the product liability and other related matters described below in more detail. Vaginal Mesh. Since 2008, we and certain of our subsidiaries, including AMS (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 multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia), and in Canada, Australia and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat POP and SUI . 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 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 in the U.S. These MSA s 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 MSA s are subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSA s provide for the creation of QSF s into which the settlement funds will be deposited, establish participation requirements and allow for a reduction of the total settlement payment in the event participation thresholds are not met. Funds deposited in QSF s are considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash equivalents. Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating product use, 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. In October 2019, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a class action settlement covering unresolved claims by Canadian women implanted with an AMS vaginal mesh device. Astora funded the settlement in February 2020. The following table presents the changes in the QSFs and mesh liability accrual balances during the year ended December 31, 2019 (in thousands): Qualified Settlement Funds Mesh Liability Accrual Balance as of January 1, 2019 $ 299,733 $ 748,606 Additional charges — 30,000 Cash contributions to Qualified Settlement Funds 253,520 — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (314,266 ) (314,266 ) Cash distributions to settle disputes — (15,330 ) Other (1) 3,855 5,021 Balance as of December 31, 2019 $ 242,842 $ 454,031 __________ (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. Also included within this line are foreign currency adjustments for settlements not denominated in U.S. dollars. 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 $3.5 billion , $242.8 million of which remains in the QSFs as of December 31, 2019 . We currently expect to fund into the QSFs during 2020 the remaining payments under all existing settlement agreements. 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 the 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. Although the Company believes it has appropriately estimated the probable total amount of loss associated with all mesh-related matters as of the date of this report, litigation is ongoing in certain cases that have not settled, trials may occur as early as April 2020, and it is reasonably possible that further claims may be filed or asserted and that adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows . Testosterone. A federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois includes multiple lawsuits against manufacturers of prescription medications containing testosterone, including our subsidiaries EPI and Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (subsequently converted to Auxilium Pharmaceuticals, LLC and hereinafter referred to as Auxilium) . Plaintiffs in these suits have generally alleged various personal injuries resulting from the use of such medications (including FORTESTA ® Gel, DELATESTRYL ® , TESTIM ® , TESTOPEL ® , AVEED ® and STRIANT ® ), including pulmonary embolism, stroke or other vascular and/or cardiac injuries, and sought compensatory and/or punitive damages, where available. 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 TRT 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 liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. The MSA established various 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. Auxilium and EPI funded the QSF in November 2019. 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. The MDL court has been dismissing cases pursuant to the settlement or for failure to comply with court orders. As of February 18, 2020 , we were aware of approximately 5 cases (some of which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) that remained pending in the MDL against one or more of our subsidiaries. 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. This lawsuit was 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. In February 2019, the court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. In November 2019, the Seventh Circuit affirmed. Although the Company believes it has appropriately estimated the probable total amount of loss associated with testosterone-related 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 overall liability accrual may be required. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows . 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 and other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canada have filed suit against us and/or certain of our subsidiaries, including EHSI , EPI , PPI , PPCI , Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI) , Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and in Canada, Paladin , as well as various other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies 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 18, 2020 , the cases in the U.S. of which we were aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 20 cases filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,700 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 280 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 160 cases filed by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions. The Canadian cases include an action filed by British Columbia on behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids, as well as three additional putative class actions, filed in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, seeking relief on behalf of Canadian residents who were prescribed and/or consumed opioid medications. 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. Other cases are pending in various federal or state courts. The cases are at various stages. The first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties (Track One plaintiffs) , was set for October 2019 but did not go forward after most defendants settled. EPI , EHSI , PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the Track One plaintiffs in September 2019 which provided for payments totaling $10 million and up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT ® and/or ADRENALIN ® . Under the settlement agreement, the Track One plaintiffs may be entitled to additional payments in the event of a comprehensive resolution of government-related opioid claims. The settlement agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. Certain state court cases are scheduled for trial in 2020, with the first of these trials currently scheduled to begin in March. Most other cases remain at the pleading and/or discovery stage. The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims, including but not limited to statutory claims asserting violations of public nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability laws 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 alleged failures to take adequate steps to identify and report suspicious orders and 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. W e 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. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows . 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 CID s on EHSI and/or EPI . We are cooperating with the 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 seeking documents and information related to OPANA ® ER, other oxymorphone products and marketing of opioid medications. We are cooperating with the investigation. In September 2019, EPI , EHSI , PPI and PPCI received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services seeking documents and information regarding the marketing, sale and distribution of opioid medications in New York. We are providing information responsive to these subpoenas. 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. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows . In January 2020, EPI and PPI executed a settlement agreement with the state of Oklahoma providing for a payment of approximately $8.75 million in resolution of potential opioid-related claims. The settlement agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. Generic Drug Pricing Matters Since March 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 PPCI , 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, as well as non-class action suits, have generally 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. The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer protection statutes and/or state common law regarding certain of our products, 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 and other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies. 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. The MDL court has issued various case management and substantive orders, including orders denying certain motions to dismiss, and discovery is ongoing. W e 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. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows . In December 2014, our subsidiary PPI received from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ a federal grand jury subpoena 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 PPCI each received a CID from the DOJ 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. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows . Other Antitrust Matters Beginning in November 2013, multiple alleged purchasers of LIDODERM ® sued our subsidiary EPI and other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of their settlement of certain patent infringement litigation. The various complaints asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law and sought damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. These cases were consolidated and/or coordinated in a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The last cases remaining in the MDL were dismissed with prejudice in September 2018, when the court approved EPI ’s settlements with direct and indirect purchaser classes. Those settlement agreements provided for aggregate payments of approximately $100 million . Of this total, EPI paid approximately $60 million in 2018, $30 million in the first quarter of 2019 and $10 million in the first quarter of 2020. In September 2019, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed a complaint against EPI and other pharmaceutical companies in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Wayne County, Michigan, asserting claims substantially similar to those asserted in the MDL . In October 2019, certain defendants removed the case to federal court. In November 2019, plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court. Beginning in June 2014, multiple alleged purchasers of OPANA ® ER sued 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), alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of an agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle certain patent infringement litigation and EPI ’s introduction of reformulated OPANA ® ER. 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. 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 Illinois. The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 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 March 2019, direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which remain pending. Beginning in February 2009, the FTC and certain private plaintiffs sued our subsidiaries PPCI (since June 2016, EGHI ) and/or PPI as well as other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of AndroGel ® and seeking damages, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The cases were consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. 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. In June 2018, the MDL court granted in part and denied in part various summary judgment and evidentiary motions filed by defendants. In particular, among other things, the court rejected two of the remaining plaintiffs’ causation theories and rejected damages claims related to AndroGel ® 1.62%. In July 2018, the court denied certain plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a direct purchaser class. In November 2019, PPI and PPCI entered into settlement agreements with all but one of the remaining plaintiffs in the MDL . The settlement agreements were solely by way of compromise and settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or fault. Separately, in August 2019, several alleged direct purchasers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asserting claims substantially similar to those asserted in the MDL , as well as additional claims against other defendants relating to other alleged conduct. In January 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia. Beginning in February 2018, several alleged indirect purchasers filed proposed class actions against our subsidiary PPI and other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of Zetia ® (ezetimibe). The various complaints asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law and sought injunctive relief, damages, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs. In June 2018, these and other related cases, including proposed direct purchaser class actions in which PPI was not named as a defendant, were consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In September 2018, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs dismissed their claims against PPI without prejudice. In June and July 2019, the MDL court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs and certain retailer plaintiffs leave to file amended complaints adding PPI as a defendant. In July 2019, PPI entered into settlement agreements with both the direct purchaser plaintiffs and the retailer plaintiffs. The direct purchaser settlement is subject to court approval. The settlement agreements were solely by way of compromise and settlement, were not in any way an admission of liability or fault and involved no monetary payment. Beginning in May 2018, multiple complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against PPI , EPI and/or us, as well as other pharmaceutical companies, alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of Exforge ® (amlodipine/valsartan). Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers; others are non-class action suits. The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law. Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2018, the putative class plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of their claims against EPI and us, and the retailer plaintiffs later did the same. PPI filed a partial motion to dismiss certain claims in September 2018, which was granted in August 2019. The cases are currently in discovery. Beginning in August 2019, multiple complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against PPI and other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out the settlement of certain patent litigation concerning generic versions of Seroquel XR ® (extended release quetiapine fumarate). The claims against PPI are based on allegations that PPI entered into an exclusive acquisition and license agreement with Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Handa) in 2012 pursuant to which Handa assigned to PPI certain rights under a prior settlement agreement between Handa and AstraZeneca resolving certain patent litigation. Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers |
