| COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 15. 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. 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 also 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. As further discussed in Note 2. Bankruptcy Proceedings, on the Petition Date, the Debtors filed voluntary petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code. Under the Bankruptcy Code, third-party actions to collect pre-petition indebtedness owed by the Debtors, as well as most litigation pending against the Debtors as of the Petition Date, are generally subject to an automatic stay. However, under the Bankruptcy Code, certain legal proceedings, such as those involving the assertion of a governmental entity’s police or regulatory powers, may not be subject to the automatic stay and may continue unless otherwise ordered by the Bankruptcy Court. As a result, some proceedings may continue (or certain parties may attempt to argue that such proceedings should continue) notwithstanding the automatic stay. Where no stay is in place or expected, and in the event the stays in place were to be lifted, we intend to vigorously prosecute or defend our position as appropriate. We cannot predict the outcome of any proceeding, and there can be no assurance that we will be successful or obtain any requested relief. 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. Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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 we expect or that coverage will otherwise be available. We may not have and may be unable to obtain or maintain insurance on acceptable terms or with adequate coverage against potential liabilities or other losses, including costs, judgments, settlements and other liabilities incurred in connection with current or future legal proceedings, regardless of the success or failure of the claim. For example, we do not have insurance sufficient to satisfy all of the opioid claims that have been made against us and, should we suffer an adverse judgment, appeal and similar bonds may not be available in such amounts as may be necessary to further challenge all or part of such judgment. We also generally no longer have product liability insurance to cover claims in connection with the mesh-related litigation described herein. Additionally, we may be limited by the surviving insurance policies of acquired entities, which may not be adequate to cover potential liabilities or other losses. Even where claims are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, there can be no assurance that the claims will be covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable or will not challenge our right to reimbursement in whole or in part. The failure to generate sufficient cash flow or to obtain other financing could affect our ability to pay amounts due under those liabilities not covered by insurance. Additionally, the nature of our business, the legal proceedings to which we are exposed and any losses we suffer may increase the cost of insurance, which could impact our decisions regarding our insurance programs. As of September 30, 2022, our accrual for loss contingencies totaled $794.6 million, the most significant components of which relate to: (i) product liability and related matters associated with transvaginal surgical mesh products, which we have not sold since March 2016 and (ii) various opioid-related matters as further described herein. 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. As of September 30, 2022, our entire accrual for loss contingencies is classified as Liabilities subject to compromise in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. As a result of the automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code and the uncertain treatment of these liabilities pursuant to a chapter 11 plan or otherwise, the timing and amount of payment, if any, related to the amounts accrued for loss contingencies is uncertain. As part of the Chapter 11 Cases, persons and entities believing that they have claims or causes of action against the Debtors, including litigants, may file proofs of claim evidencing such claims. The Debtors have not yet set a bar date (deadline) for holders of claims to file proofs of claim. At the Company’s request, the Bankruptcy Court has appointed a future claims representative (FCR) in the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases. As further described in the applicable bankruptcy court filings, the FCR represents the rights of individuals who may in the future assert one or more claims against the Company or a successor of the Company’s businesses for personal injury based on the Company’s opioid, transvaginal mesh or ranitidine products, but who could not assert such claims in the Chapter 11 Cases because, among other reasons, the claimant was unaware of the alleged injury, had a latent manifestation of the alleged injury or was otherwise unable to assert or incapable of asserting the claims based on the alleged injury. 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. At various times from June 2013 through the Petition Date, the Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries entered into various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements intended to resolve approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled U.S. mesh claims. These MSAs and other agreements 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 are deposited, establish participation requirements and allow for a reduction of the total settlement payment in the event participation thresholds are not met. In certain circumstances, participation requirements or other conditions for payment were not satisfied prior to the Petition Date. 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 mesh-related QSFs and liability accrual balances during the nine months ended September 30, 2022 (in thousands): Mesh Qualified Settlement Funds Mesh Liability Accrual Balance as of December 31, 2021 $ 78,402 $ 258,137 Cash received for reversionary interests, net of cash contributions to Qualified Settlement Funds (367) — Cash distributions to settle disputes from Qualified Settlement Funds (20,089) (20,089) Other cash distributions to settle disputes — (6,499) Other (1) 149 (820) Balance as of September 30, 2022 (2) $ 58,095 $ 230,729 __________ (1) Amounts deposited in the QSFs earn interest from time to time that is reflected in the table above as an increase to the QSF and Mesh Liability Accrual balances. Subject to any restrictions on making payments as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, such interest is generally used to pay administrative costs of the funds and 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. (2) As of September 30, 2022, this balance is classified as Liabilities subject to compromise in the Condensed 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 Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. As of September 30, 2022, the Company has made total cumulative mesh liability payments of approximately $3.6 billion, $58.1 million of which remains in the QSFs as of September 30, 2022. In light of the filing of petitions for relief under the Bankruptcy Code, we do not expect to make new payments under previously executed mesh settlement agreements within the next 12 months. 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. As of the Petition Date, mesh personal injury claims against AMS and Astora in the U.S. became subject to the automatic stay, and a similar cessation of litigation activity is in place in some other countries. In certain other countries where no stay is in place, and in the event the stays in place were to be lifted, we will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved claims and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. 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. 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, it is reasonably possible 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 the defendants’ alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain of our products. As of November 1, 2022, pending cases in the U.S. of which we were aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 15 cases filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,570 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 310 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 220 cases filed by individuals, including but not limited to legal guardians of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. Certain of the U.S. cases are 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 in Alberta 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; an action filed in Saskatchewan by the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation and the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, on behalf of a proposed class of all First Nations communities and local or municipal governments in Canada; and three additional putative class actions, filed in British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, 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 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. The damages sought exceed our applicable insurance. 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; however, in April 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order suggesting that, based on the progress of the MDL, it would no longer transfer new cases filed in or removed to federal court to the MDL. Other cases are pending in various federal or state courts. As of the Petition Date, litigation activity against the Company and its subsidiaries ceased in nearly all pending cases as a result of the automatic stay. A similar cessation of litigation activity is in place in Canada. One plaintiff, the State of Oregon, has taken the position that the automatic stay does not apply to its case, but has nevertheless agreed to suspend further litigation pending resolution of a motion for a preliminary injunction in the Bankruptcy Court that, if granted, would confirm that opioid cases brought by public plaintiffs may not proceed during the pendency of the bankruptcy proceedings. 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. In July 2021, DFS filed an amended statement of charges. The amended 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. DFS seeks civil penalties for each allegedly fraudulent prescription as well as injunctive relief. In July 2021, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI, among others, filed a petition in New York state court seeking to prohibit DFS from proceeding with its administrative enforcement action. In December 2021, DFS filed a motion to dismiss that petition, which the court granted in June 2022. The Company’s subsidiaries, among others, appealed that ruling in July 2022. Both the appeal and the DFS administrative matter were stayed following commencement of the Chapter 11 Cases. Between 2019 and the Petition Date, the Company and/or certain of its subsidiaries executed a number of settlement agreements to resolve governmental opioid claims brought by certain states, counties, cities and/or other governmental entities. Certain related developments include but are not limited to the following: • In September 2019, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with two Ohio counties providing for payments totaling $10 million and up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT ® and/or ADRENALIN ® . The settlement amount was paid during the third quarter of 2019. • In January 2020, EPI and PPI executed a settlement agreement with the state of Oklahoma providing for a payment of $8.75 million. The settlement amount was paid during the first quarter of 2020. • In August 2021, EPI, EHSI, nine counties in eastern Tennessee, eighteen municipalities within those counties and a minor individual executed a settlement agreement providing for a payment of $35 million. The settlement amount was paid during the third quarter of 2021. • In September 2021, Endo International plc, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the state of New York and two of its counties providing for a payment of $50 million. The settlement amount was paid during the third quarter of 2021. • In October 2021, EPI and EHSI executed a settlement agreement with the Alabama Attorney General’s office intended to resolve opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Alabama governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $25 million, subject to certain participation thresholds. The settlement amount was not paid as of the Petition Date and, as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, it is not known when or if such amount will be paid. • In December 2021, Endo International plc, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the Texas Attorney General’s office and four Texas counties intended to resolve opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Texas governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $63 million, subject to certain participation thresholds. The settlement amount was deposited into a QSF during the first quarter of 2022. • In January 2022, EPI and EHSI executed a settlement agreement with the Florida Attorney General’s office intended to resolve opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Florida governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of up to $65 million, subject to certain participation thresholds. The settlement amount was deposited into a QSF during the second quarter of 2022. • In February 2022, EPI and EHSI executed a settlement agreement with the Louisiana Attorney General’s office intended to resolve opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Louisiana governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $7.5 million, subject to certain participation thresholds. The settlement amount was not paid as of the Petition Date and, as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, it is not known when or if such amount will be paid. • In March 2022, EPI, EHSI and PPI executed a settlement agreement with the West Virginia Attorney General’s office intended to resolve opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other West Virginia governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $26 million, subject to certain participation thresholds. The settlement amount was not paid as of the Petition Date and, as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, it is not known when or if such amount will be paid. • In June 2022, EPI and EHSI executed a settlement agreement with the Arkansas Attorney General’s office and certain Arkansas local governments intended to resolve opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Arkansas governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $9.75 million, subject to certain participation thresholds. With the exception of certain amounts held back pursuant to an MDL common benefit fund order, the settlement amount was paid during the third quarter of 2022. • In July 2022, EPI and EHSI executed a settlement agreement with the Mississippi Attorney General’s office intended to resolve opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Mississippi governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $9 million, subject to certain participation thresholds. The settlement amount was not paid as of the Petition Date and, as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, it is not known when or if such amount will be paid. • In July 2022, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the City and County of San Francisco providing for an initial payment of $5 million and subsequent payments of $500,000 a year over ten years. The settlement amount was not paid as of the Petition Date and, as a result of the Chapter 11 Cases, it is not known when or if such amount will be paid. While the specific terms of the agreements vary, each agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was not in any way an admission of wrongdoing, fault or liability of any kind by us or any of our subsidiaries. Certain settlement agreements provided for the creation of QSFs, the repayment of some or all of the settlement amount under certain conditions and/or additional payments in the event certain conditions were met. Depending on the terms of the respective agreements, funds deposited in QSFs have been and may continue to be considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash equivalents for a period of time subsequent to the initial funding. Distribution of funds from the QSFs is conditioned upon certain criteria that vary by agreement. Certain of the settlement agreements described above provide for injunctive relief. The RSA also provides for certain voluntary injunctive terms that bind the Company during the course of the bankruptcy proceedings and would apply to any purchaser of our opioid business in conjunction with the bankruptcy proceedings. The Stalking Horse Bid provides for the establishment by the Purchaser of voluntary opioid trusts for the benefit of certain public, tribal and private opioid claimants in exchange for releases to be provided to (among others) the Purchaser and Endo International plc, its subsidiaries and affiliated entities and persons. The trusts would distribute up to a total of $550 million over ten years to eligible claimants that opt into the trust agreements by specified participation deadlines. Under the proposed public claimant opioid trust, states which have previously reached settlement agreements and received payments from us may elect to participate in the trust. In doing so, those states would agree to return the amounts previously received, net of the amounts allocated to them in the trust agreement and would receive in return a release from any claim for the return of settlement funds under the applicable section of the Bankruptcy Code. The Company would have no obligation or liability with respect to the voluntary trusts, which would be funded exclusively by the Purchaser. As previously noted, the Stalking Horse Bid is subject to higher or otherwise better bids from other parties and therefore there is no certainty regarding whether the proposed sale transaction to the Purchaser, and the funding of the voluntary opioid trusts by the Purchaser, will actually occur. Although the proposed voluntary opioid trusts would be funded by the Purchaser, and not by the Company or any of its subsidiaries, we believe the proposed funding amount represents the best estimate of liability relating to the contingencies associated with various opioid claims against the Company and its subsidiaries. We therefore recorded charges of approximately $419 million and $429 million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2022, respectively, to adjust our aggregate opioid liability accrual to approximately $550 million as of September 30, 2022. To the extent unresolved, and in the event stays in place were to be lifted, we will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests, which may include entering into settlement negotiations and settlements even in circumstances where we believe we have meritorious defenses. 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 but not limited to the following: Various state attorneys general have served subpoenas and/or CIDs on EHSI and/or EPI. Some of these state attorneys general subsequently filed lawsuits against the Company and/or its subsidiaries; others have indicated their support for the opioid trusts described above. To the extent any state attorney general investigations are continuing, we are cooperating with them. 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 a subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia seeking documents related to McKinsey & Company. The Company received a related subpoena in May 2021, also issued by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia. 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. 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 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. Similar complaints against various defendants, in some instances including PPI, have also been filed in certain state courts, including but not limited to California, Illinois and Pennsylvania. Neither PPI nor its subsidiaries have 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, 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 was not named as a defendant in the consumer economic loss complaint or the medical monitoring complaint. In July 2021, the MDL court dismissed all claims in the master complaints as to PPI and other generic defendants with prejudice on federal preemption grounds. In November 2021, the MDL court issued a final judgment as to PPI and other generic defendants. Certain MDL plaintiffs appealed the July 2021 dismissal order and/or the November 2021 judgment. In July 2022, claimants who alleged certain types of injuries were “exited” from the MDL census registry. Some of these claimants subsequently filed lawsuits in various courts. As of the Petition Date, the claims against PPI became subject to the automatic stay. Thereafter, PPI was voluntarily dismissed from several pending matters, including the appeal from the MDL court’s dismissal of the third-party payer class action complaint. In the event the stays in place were to be lifted, 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, DAVA International, 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 |
