| Commitments & Contingencies | NOTE 20 — The Company and its affiliates are involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings, and litigation matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The Company’s general practice is to expense legal fees as services are rendered in connection with legal matters, and to accrue for liabilities when losses are probable and reasonably estimable. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that is accrued. As of March 31, 2019, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of approximately $ 75.0 The Company’s legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to mass tort actions and class actions with thousands of putative class members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, qui tam In matters involving the assertion or defense of the Company’s intellectual property, the Company believes it has meritorious claims and intends to vigorously assert or defend the patents or other intellectual property at issue in such litigation. Similarly, in matters where the Company is a defendant, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, the Company can offer no assurances that it will be successful in a litigation or, in the case of patent enforcement matters, that a generic version of the product at issue will not be launched or enjoined. Failing to prevail in a litigation could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Intellectual Property Litigation Patent Enforcement Matters Combigan ® ® ® Fetzima ® In April 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Pierre Fabre Medicament S.A.S. brought an action for infringement of the ‘879, ‘598 and ‘937 Patents against Micro Labs Ltd. and Micro Labs USA, Inc. (“Micro”) in connection with Micro’s abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of Fetzima ® Juvéderm ® Kybella ® . On November 9, 2018, a subsidiary of the Company brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,101,593 (the “‘593 Patent”), 8,367,649 (the “‘649 Patent”) and 8,653,058 (the “‘058 Patent”) against Slayback Pharma LLC (“Slayback”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA by Slayback seeking approval to market a generic version of Kybella® and challenging said patents. The ‘593, ‘649, and ‘058 Patents expire in March 2030. On April 10, 2019, a subsidiary of the Company, together with Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute at Harbor UCLA-Medical Center (“LA BioMed”) and The Regents of the University of California (the “Regents”) (all collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed an amended complaint against Slayback asserting infringement of the ‘593, ‘649 and ‘058 Patents and U.S. Patent Nos. 7,622,130 (the “‘130 Patent”), 7,754,230 (the “‘230 Patent”), 8,298,556 (the “‘556 Patent”) and 8,846,066 (the “‘066 Patent”). The ‘130 and ‘230 Patents expire in December 2027 (not including pending applications for patent term extension (“PTE”)), the ‘556 Patent expires in August 2025, and the ‘066 Patent expires in February 2025. No trial date has been set. Latisse ® . In December 2016, Sandoz announced the U.S. market launch of its generic copy of Latisse ® ® Latisse ® . On September 25, 2017, subsidiaries of the Company and Duke University brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,579,270 (the “‘270 Patent”) against Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Alembic Global Holding SA, and Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Alembic”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with FDA by Alembic, seeking approval to market a generic version of Latisse ® Latisse ® . On September 19, 2018, subsidiaries of the Company and Duke University brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,579,270 (the “‘270 Patent”) against Akorn, Inc. and Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. (collectively, “Akorn”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with FDA by Akorn seeking approval to market a generic version of Latisse® and challenging the ‘270 patent. No trial date has been set. Linzess ® . Beginning in November 2016 subsidiaries of the Company and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought multiple actions for infringement of some or all of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,304,036 (the “‘036 Patent”); 7,371,727 (the “‘727 Patent”); 7,704,947 (the “‘947 Patent”); 7,745,409 (the “‘409 Patent”); 8,080,526 (the “‘526 Patent”); 8,110,553 (the “‘553 Patent”); 8,748,573 (the “‘573 Patent”); 8,802,628 (the “‘628 Patent”); and 8,933,030 (the “‘030 Patent”) against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”), Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) and Sun Pharma Global FZE (“Sun”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Teva, Aurobindo, Mylan, Sandoz and Sun, each seeking approval to market generic versions of Linzess ® 145 mcg and 290 mcg capsules and challenging some or all of said patents (“November 2016 Action”). The ‘727, ‘947, ‘409, ‘526 and ‘553 Patents expire in January 2024; the ‘036 Patent expires in August 2026; and the ‘573, ‘628 and ‘030 Patents expire in 2031. In the November 2016 Action, expert discovery has been completed. Trial is scheduled for June 2019. On October 20, 2017, November 30, 2017 and January 20, 2018, Plaintiffs brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,708,371 (the “‘371 Patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva, Mylan and Sandoz, respectively. The ‘371 Patent expires in 2033. The ‘371 patent actions have been consolidated with the November 2016 Action. On February 2, 2018 and March 29, 2018, Plaintiffs brought actions for infringement of some or all of the ‘036, ‘727, ‘947, ‘409, ‘526, ‘553, ‘030 and ‘371 Patents against Teva and Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Teva and Mylan, each seeking approval to market generic versions generic versions of Linzess ® In May and August 2018, the district court granted joint stipulations and orders to dismiss without prejudice all claims, counterclaims, and defenses in the November 2016 Action with respect to the ‘371 Patent and the ‘030 Patent, respectively, as between Plaintiffs, Teva, Mylan and Sandoz. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as to Mylan to assert the ‘628 patent against Mylan’s 72 mcg ANDA product. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Sun and certain Sun affiliates and the case against Sun was dismissed on January 18, 2018. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Aurobindo and the case against Aurobindo was dismissed on May 7, 2018. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan and the case against Mylan was dismissed on December 27, 2018. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Mylan to market its generic versions of Linzess ® ® Restasis ® . Between August 2015 and July 2016, a subsidiary of the Company brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,629,111 (the “‘111 patent”), 8,633,162 (the “‘162 patent”), 8,642,556 (the “‘556 patent”), 8,648,048 (the “‘048 patent”), 8,685,930 (the “‘930 patent”) and 9,248,191 (the “’191 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Akorn, Inc., Apotex, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., InnoPharma, Inc., Famy Care Limited (“Famy Care”), TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“TWi”) and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. The subsidiary entered into settlement agreements with Apotex, TWi, Famy Care and InnoPharma. As a result of certain of these settlements, Allergan will provide a license to certain parties to launch their generic versions of Restasis ® On September 8, 2017, the Company assigned all Orange Book-listed patents for Restasis ® On October 16, 2017, the District Court issued a decision and final judgment finding that the asserted claims of the ‘111 patent, the ‘048 patent, the ‘930 patent and the ‘191 patent were infringed, but invalid on the ground of obviousness. The District Court also held that the asserted claims were not invalid as anticipated, for lack of enablement, or for improper inventorship. On November 13, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision affirming the district court’s finding of invalidity of the asserted claims of the ‘111, ‘048, ‘930 and ‘191 Patents. On March 6, 2019, the Federal Circuit denied Allergan and the Tribe’s petition for rehearing, and a mandate issued on March 13, 2019. On April 10, 2019, Allergan and the Tribe filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. On December 22, 2016, a subsidiary of the Company Allergan filed a complaint for infringement of the ’111 patent, ’162 patent, ’556 patent, ’048 patent, ’930 patent, and the ’191 patent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Deva Holding A.S. (“Deva”). On March 6, 2018, the district court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ joint motion for entry of a stipulated order, and stayed the case until such time as the Federal Circuit in the lead appeal case with Teva, Mylan and Akron issues a mandate. The parties’ stipulation provides that Deva will be bound by the outcome of that appeal. On August 10 and September 20, 2018, a subsidiary of the Company and the Tribe filed complaints for infringement of the ’162 patent and the ’556 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Saptalis and against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Private Limited (collectively, “Amneal”), respectively. The cases were voluntarily dismissed on January 2, 2019. Restasis ® . On June 6, 2016, a subsidiary of the Company received notification letters that Inter Partes Review of the USPTO (“IPR”) petitions were filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,629,111 (the “‘111 patent”), 8,633,162 (the “‘162 patent”), 8,642,556 (the “‘556 patent”), 8,648,048 (the “‘048 patent”), 8,685,930 (the “‘930 patent”), and 9,248,191 (the “‘191 patent”), which patents expire on August 27, 2024. Mylan filed the IPR petition on June 3, 2016. On June 23, 2016, a subsidiary of the Company received a notification letter that an IPR petition and motion for joinder was filed by Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Argentum”) regarding the ’111 patent. On December 7, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Argentum and Argentum’s petition was withdrawn. On December 8, 2016, the USPTO granted Mylan’s petitions to institute IPRs with respect to these patents. On January 6, 2017, each of Akorn and Teva filed, and on January 9, 2017 the USPTO received, IPR petitions with respect to these patents and motions for joinder with the Mylan IPR. The USPTO granted Teva’s and Akorn’s joinder motions on March 31, 2017. On September 8, 2017, Allergan assigned all Orange Book-listed patents for Restasis ® ® On February 23, 2018, the USPTO issued orders denying the Tribe’s motion to dismiss (or terminate). On July 20, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the USPTO’s denial of the Tribe’s motion to dismiss and Allergan’s motion to withdraw. On August 20, 2018, the Tribe and Allergan filed a petition for rehearing en banc, which the Federal Circuit denied on October 22, 2018. On December 21, 2018, the Company and the Tribe filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on April 15, 2019. Saphris ® . Between September 2014 and May 2015, subsidiaries of the Company brought actions for infringement of some or all of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,763,476 (the “‘476 patent”), 7,741,358 (the “‘358 patent”) and 8,022,228 (the “‘228 patent”) against Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC (“Sigmapharm”), Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Hikma”), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge”), Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Alembic”) and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Amneal”), and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with an abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with FDA by Sigmapharm, Hikma, Breckenridge, Alembic and Amneal, each seeking approval to market a generic versions of Saphris ® On March 14, 2019, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s July 2017 judgment that claims 1 and 4 are not invalid and remanded for the district court to consider a fact question and its impact on the obviousness analysis. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to this issue. In its March 14, 2019 order, the Federal Circuit also vacated the judgment of non-infringement of claims 4, 9 and 10 as to Alembic and Breckenridge and remanded for the district court to consider their infringement under a revised claim construction. A separate bench trial concerning Sigmapharm’s infringement of claim 1 of the ‘476 patent began on June 20, 2018, and on November 16, 2018, the court held that Sigmapharms’ proposed ANDA product would infringe claim 1 of the ‘476 patent On November 26, 2018, Sigmapharm sought relief from the November 16, 2018 decision. On November 30, 2018, the Company moved for entry of final judgment. Both motions are currently pending. Trade Secret Matters Botulinum Neurotoxin ITC Investigation . On January 30, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Medytox Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Daewoong Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Daewoong Co., Ltd., and Evolus Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) requesting the ITC commence an investigation with respect to the Respondents’ importation into the United States of Respondents’ botulinum neurotoxin products, including DWP-450 (also known as Jeuveau TM TM TM Trademark Enforcement Matters Juvéderm ® . On April 5, 2017, a subsidiary of the Company brought an action for unfair competition, false advertising, dilution, conspiracy and infringement of Allergan’s Juvéderm ® ® Subsidiaries of the Company requested a preliminary injunction against Dermavita, Dima Corp, Aesthetic Services, Jacqueline Sillam and Dimitri Sillam in the High Court of Paris, France. During June 2017, the Paris Court preliminarily enjoined the defendants, inter alia, to refrain from promoting or selling in France its Juvederm products, to transfer various domain names and to pay provisional damages to Allergan, on the basis that such use would infringe Allergan’s EU and French Juvéderm ® On January 22, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company brought a related action for infringement of the Company’s Juvéderm ® Furthermore, more than 150 trademark opposition and cancellation actions between Allergan and Dermavita have been filed in front of the USPTO, EUIPO and various other national and regional trademark offices around the world. Most of these actions remain pending; however, Allergan has received favorable decisions in more than ten (10) such actions. Antitrust Litigation Asacol ® . Class action complaints have been filed against certain subsidiaries of the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. The lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaints allege that plaintiffs paid higher prices for Asacol ® ® ® Loestrin ® . Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits related to Loestrin ® Namenda ® . In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda® in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda ® Restasis ® . Shire, which offers the dry-eye disease drug Xiidra ® ® ® Restasis ® . Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis ® ® Commercial Litigation Celexa ® ® . Certain subsidiaries of the Company were named in federal court actions relating to the promotion of Celexa ® ® Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices . A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain products. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint is still pending. Generic Drug Pricing Securities and ERISA Litigation . Putative classes of shareholders and two individual opt-out plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading statements between February 2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company’s internal controls over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. On April 11, 2019, the court heard oral arguments on the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. In addition, class action complaints have been filed premised on the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities litigation but that assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). These complaints have been consolidated in the district court in New Jersey. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss this complaint. The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Litigation . The Company has been named as a defendant, along with several other manufacturers and distributors of opioid products, in over 1,850 matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers and additional suits have been filed. The lawsuits allege generally that the manufacturer defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote their products in violation of state laws and seek unspecified monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these suits include states, political subdivisions of states (i.e., counties and municipalities), Native American tribes and other private litigants such as insurance plans, hospital systems and consumers who were prescribed opioid products and were subsequently treated for an overdose or addiction. Cases are pending in both federal and state courts. The federal court cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, with a first set of cases set for trial in October 2019. Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action . Subsidiaries of the Company were named in a class action complaint filed on behalf a putative class of third-party payers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company’s subsidiaries violated various laws including the federal RICO statute and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of Androderm ® Oculeve Shareholder Dispute . On February 26, 2019, Fortis Advisors LLC, as a representative of the former stockholders of Oculeve, Inc., filed a lawsuit against a subsidiary of the Company in state court in Delaware. The lawsuit centers on a claim that the Company breached the terms of a July 2015 merger agreement. The Company subsidiary has moved to dismiss the complaint. Product Liability Litigation Actonel ® . A subsidiary of the Company is a defendant in over 500 filed cases in federal and various state courts, relating to the bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel ® ® Breast Implant Litigation . Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in more than a dozen cases alleging that Allergan’s textured breast implants caused women to develop a rare condition known as anaplastic large cell lymphoma (“ALCL”), and that the defendants failed to properly warn against this risk and failed to promptly and properly report the results of the post-marketing studies relating to these products. These cases have been filed in both federal and state courts in the United States and well as provincial courts in Canada. One of the Canadian cases has been asserted on behalf a putative class of consumers. Benicar ® . A subsidiary of the Company has been named in a number of lawsuits involving allegations that Benicar ® Celexa ® ® . Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in over 150 actions alleging that Celexa® or Lexapro ® RepliForm ® . A Company subsidiary has been named as a defendant in over 300 cases alleging that its biologic mesh product RepliForm ® Testosterone Litigation . A number of product liability suits were filed against certain Company subsidiaries as well as other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm ® Government Investigations, Government Litigation and Qui Tam Litigation The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. Company subsidiaries have received subpoenas and/or Civil Investigative Demands (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice, the United States Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, United States Congressional Committees as well as various state regulatory and enforcement authorities. Each of the subpoenas and CIDs seek documents and information relating to discrete topics, including but not limited to: the calculation and reporting by certain Company subsidiaries of their Average Manufacturer Prices, Average Wholesale Prices and Best Prices for several of their products; sales and marketing practices of Botox to urology practices; the promotion and sale of two gastroenterology products; the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s acquisition of six Restasis patents and the granting of exclusive licenses to the Restasis product to the Company; and, the promotion and sale of opioid products. In each case, the Company and its subsidiaries are cooperating fully with the governmental authority’s requests. Certain states have initiated lawsuits and qui tam lawsuits have been filed by private parties, also known as relators, on behalf of the federal or state governments. Certain Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits that allege generally that state Medicaid agencies were overcharged for their share of Medicaid drug reimbursement costs due to inflated Average Wholesale Prices (“AWP”) reported by the Company subsidiaries. AWP lawsuits are currently pending in Illinois, Utah and Wisconsin. Namenda XR ® ® . A relator filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States government and several individual states against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with Adamas Pharma LLC and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Adamas”). The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was unsealed on February 6, 2019. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges generally that the Adamas and Allergan defendants each engaged in conduct that delayed generic versions of Namenda XR ® ® Medical Aesthetics Qui Tam . A subsidiary of the Company was recently served with a qui tam lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of the United States and several individual states. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges that certain promotional programs and sampling practices of the Company’s Medical Aesthetics business result in price reporting violations and violate anti-kickback statutes. The Company subsidiary has not yet responded to this complaint. Matters Relating to the Company’s Divested Generics Business The following matters relate to the former generics business of the Company or the transaction pursuant to which that business was sold to Teva, effective August 2, 2016. Teva has agreed to indemnify and defend the Company against all matters asserted in litigation against the Company arising out of the former generics business, including litigations and investigations relating to generic opioid products including, without limitation, the actions described below. Lidoderm ® . The U.S. Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit in federal district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and one of its former global generics business subsidiaries and others alleging that patent litigation settlements relating to Lidoderm were anticompetitive. The FTC voluntarily withdrew its complaint in Pennsylvania and filed a similar complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District California where similar lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs were already pending and where the State of California filed a similar complaint against the same defendants. Defendants in the Pennsylvania action filed a declaratory judgment action against the FTC in the Pennsylvania federal court but the court granted the FTC’s motion to dismiss this lawsuit. The FTC and State of California’s actions were stayed pending the declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The federal court in California has not yet issued a ruling or lifted the stay in these cases since the court’s ruling in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Hydrocortisone Investigation . In 2016, the Company received notice from the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) that it would be included within the scope of the CMA’s formal investigation under Section 25 of the Competition Act of 1998 (“CA98”) into suspected abuse of dominance by a former generics business subsidiary of the Company in relation to the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets. The CMA is investigating: (i) alleged excessive and unfair prices with respect to hydrocortisone tablets and (ii) whether the former generics business subsidiary entered into anti-competitive agreements with a potential competitor for this product. The CMA has issued statements of objection with respect to both parts of its investigation. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the investigation. Teva Shareholder Derivative Litigation . In 2017, the Company was named as defendant in a proposed Teva shareholder derivative litigation filed in the Economic Division of the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel. The lawsuit contains allegations that the Company aided and abetted Teva’s board of directors violations of Israeli securities laws. To date, the court has not determined whether it will allow plaintiffs to proceed with this action. |
