| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 13. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings and Investigations We and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in various claims, legal proceedings and internal and governmental investigations (collectively, proceedings) arising 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. We are subject to a number of matters that are not being disclosed herein because, in the opinion of our management, these matters are immaterial both individually and in the aggregate with respect to our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. 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 in the amounts that we expect or that coverage will otherwise be available. See the risk factor “ We may not have and may be unable to obtain or maintain insurance adequate to cover potential liabilities ” in the Annual Report for more information. As of March 31, 2021, our accrual for loss contingencies totaled $327.9 million, the most significant components of which relate to product liability and related matters associated with transvaginal surgical mesh products, which we have not sold since March 2016. Although we believe there is a 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 March 31, 2021, the entire liability accrual amount is classified in the Current portion of legal settlement accrual in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Vaginal Mesh Matters Since 2008, we and certain of our subsidiaries, including American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (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., Canada, Australia 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). We have not sold such products since March 2016. 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. Various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements have resolved approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled U.S. mesh claims as of March 31, 2021. 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 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 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 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 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 agreements. The following table presents the changes in the QSFs and mesh liability accrual balances during the three months ended March 31, 2021 (in thousands): Qualified Settlement Funds Mesh Liability Accrual Balance as of December 31, 2020 $ 126,998 $ 330,921 Additional charges — — Cash contributions to Qualified Settlement Funds 2,000 — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (17,853) (17,853) Cash distributions to settle disputes — (3,734) Other (1) 8 (255) Balance as of March 31, 2021 $ 111,153 $ 309,079 __________ (1) Amounts deposited in the QSFs may earn interest, which is generally used to pay administrative costs of the funds 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 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of March 31, 2021, the Company has made total cumulative mesh liability payments of approximately $3.6 billion, $111.2 million of which remains in the QSFs as of March 31, 2021. We currently expect to fund all of the remaining payments under all previously executed settlement agreements during 2021. As 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 U.S. 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 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. The earliest trial is currently scheduled for July 2021; however, the timing of trials is uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors. 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, 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. Opioid-Related Matters Since 2014, multiple U.S. states as well as 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 Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Par Sterile Products, LLC (PSP LLC) and in Canada, Paladin and Endo Ventures Limited, 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 April 29, 2021, filed 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 2,900 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 300 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 190 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, an action filed by the City of Grand Prairie, Alberta, and The Corporation of the City of Brantford, Ontario, on behalf of a proposed class of all local or municipal governments in Canada, 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. 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 various remedies including, without limitation, declaratory and/or injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys’ fees, costs and/or other relief. Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal multidistrict litigation (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 in the litigation process. 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. In February 2021, the MDL court declined to certify a proposed class of legal guardians of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome; plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied. A trial began in April 2021 in The People of the State of California v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. , a case pending in Superior Court in Orange County, California. The next trial is currently scheduled to begin in June 2021 in New York state court, and other cases have also been set for trial in various courts around the country. Trials may occur earlier or later than currently scheduled, as timing remains uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors. In April 2021, the court in Staubus, et al. v Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. , a case filed by three district attorneys general and an individual in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County, Tennessee, issued an order granting a default judgment on liability against EPI and EHSI and awarding the plaintiffs fees and costs relating to certain discovery issues. The plaintiffs assert claims under the Tennessee Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA), which provides for the recovery of economic damages, non-economic damages, exemplary damages, reasonable attorney fees and costs of suit. The district attorneys general claim to be seeking economic damages of approximately $2.4 billion, as well as other relief, on behalf of nine counties in eastern Tennessee and certain municipalities within those counties. Also in April 2021, on the day before issuing the default judgment order, the court issued a separate order (i) denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the district attorneys general from the case in light of a December 2020 Tennessee Supreme Court ruling that district attorneys general lack standing to sue under the DDLA, (ii) allowing seven counties to be substituted into the case as plaintiffs, and (iii) providing a period of thirty days for other counties and municipalities on whose behalf the district attorneys general had sued to join the lawsuit. The plaintiffs subsequently notified the court that two additional counties and several municipalities have elected to substitute into the case as plaintiffs; the plaintiffs also requested a short extension of time for other municipalities to make their elections. The court’s default judgment order is limited to the issue of liability. The court has not made any determination on the issue of damages and has scheduled a jury trial on damages to begin in July 2021. In May 2021, EPI and EHSI filed a notice of appeal and in the alternative a petition seeking appellate review of the court’s default judgment order, a petition seeking appellate review of the court’s substitution order, and a motion to stay further proceedings in the trial court pending resolution of appellate proceedings. In addition, EPI and EHSI previously filed a motion for summary judgment on the government plaintiffs’ claims that relates in part to damages; that motion remains pending. At this time, the Company does not believe that a loss is probable, nor can it estimate the range of possible loss, if any, associated with the case. In September 2019, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking documents and information regarding the marketing, sale and distribution of opioid medications in New York. In June 2020, DFS commenced an administrative action against the Company, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI alleging violations of the New York Insurance Law and New York Financial Services Law. The statement of charges alleges that fraudulent or otherwise wrongful conduct in the marketing, sale and/or distribution of opioid medications caused false claims to be submitted to insurers and seeks civil penalties for each allegedly fraudulent prescription as well as injunctive relief. The action is currently set for hearing in June 2021. We will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters, including but not limited to the Staubus matter, 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 and administrative matters 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 the investigations. In January 2018, 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 December 2020, the Company received an administrative subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia seeking documents related to McKinsey & Company. 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. 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. Ranitidine Matters In June 2020, an MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation , was expanded to add PPI and numerous other manufacturers and distributors of generic ranitidine as defendants. The claims are generally based on allegations that under certain conditions the active ingredient in Zantac ® and generic ranitidine medications can break down to form an alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). The complaints assert a variety of claims, including but not limited to various product liability, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, statutory and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiffs generally seek various remedies including, without limitation, compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys’ fees and costs as well as injunctive and/or other relief. PPI and its subsidiaries have not manufactured or sold ranitidine since 2016. The MDL court has issued various case management orders, including orders directing the filing of “master” and short-form complaints, establishing a census registry process for potential claimants and addressing various discovery issues. In December 2020, the court dismissed the master complaints as to PPI and other defendants with leave to amend certain claims. Certain plaintiffs, including third party payers pursuing class action claims, have appealed the dismissal orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In February 2021, various other plaintiffs filed an amended master personal injury complaint, a consolidated amended consumer economic loss class action complaint and a consolidated medical monitoring class action complaint. PPI is not named as a defendant in the consumer economic loss complaint or the medical monitoring complaint. Defendants, including PPI, filed motions to dismiss the amended complaints in March 2021. 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. 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. Generic Drug Pricing Matters Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs, state attorneys general and other governmental entities have filed cases against our subsidiary PPI and/or, in some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, EPI, EHSI 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. There is also a proposed class action filed in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of a proposed class of Canadian purchasers. 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, 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 generally 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. 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. 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 U.S. Department of Justice (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 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. In April 2020, defendants filed motions for summary judgment, which remain pending. Beginning in February 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (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; a settlement with that remaining plaintiff was reached in April 2021. 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 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; 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 October 2019, the defendants filed various motions to dismiss and, in the alternative, moved to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In August 2020, the Southern District of New York granted the motion to transfer without ruling on the motions to dismiss. In January 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss in the District of Delaware, which remain pending. Beginning in June 2020, multiple complaints were filed against Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other pharmaceutical companies, including PPI, alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws in connection with the settlement of certain patent litigations concerning generic versions of Xyrem ® (sodium oxybate). Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers; there is also a non-class action suit. 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 California. The various complaints allege that Jazz entered into a series of “reverse-payment” settlements, including with PPI, to delay generic competition for Xyrem ® and assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton 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 April 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints. In January 2021, the FTC filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, EPI, Impax Laboratories, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., generally alleging that the 2017 settlement of a contract dispute between EPI and Impax (now Amneal) constitutes unfair competition in violation of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act. The complaint generally seeks injunctive and equitable monetary relief. In April 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss. To the extent unresolved, 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 e |
