| Commitments and Contingencies | 13. Commitments and Contingencies Commitments Commercial Manufacturing, Collaboration, License, and Distribution Agreements The Company continues to seek to enhance its product line and develop a balanced portfolio of differentiated products through product acquisitions and in-licensing. Accordingly, the Company, in certain instances, may be contractually obligated to make potential future development, regulatory, and commercial milestone, royalty and/or profit sharing payments in conjunction with collaborative agreements or acquisitions that the Company has entered into with third parties. The Company has also licensed certain technologies or intellectual property from various third parties. The Company is generally required to make upfront payments as well as other payments upon successful completion of regulatory or sales milestones. The agreements generally permit the Company to terminate the agreement with no significant continuing obligation. The Company could be required to make significant payments pursuant to these arrangements. These payments are contingent upon the occurrence of certain future events and, given the nature of these events, it is unclear when, if ever, the Company may be required to pay such amounts. Further, the timing of any future payment is not reasonably estimable. Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company's legal proceedings are complex, constantly evolving and subject to uncertainty. As such, the Company cannot predict the outcome or impact of the legal proceedings set forth below. Additionally, the Company is subject to legal proceedings that are not set forth below. While the Company believes it has valid claims and/or defenses to the matters described below, the nature of litigation is unpredictable, and the outcome of the following proceedings could include damages, fines, penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. For any proceedings where losses are probable and reasonably capable of estimation, the Company accrues for a potential loss. While these accruals have been deemed reasonable by the Company’s management, the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may ultimately prove inaccurate or incomplete. Additionally, unforeseen circumstances or events may lead the Company to subsequently change its estimates and assumptions. Unless otherwise indicated below, the Company is at this time unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with such litigation. The Company currently intends to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these proceedings as appropriate. From time to time, however, the Company may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that it believes to be in its best interest. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2019, the Company recorded a net charge of $15 million for the commercial and governmental legal proceedings and claims. The ultimate resolution of any or all claims, legal proceedings or investigations could differ materially from our estimate and have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and/or cash flow in any given accounting period, or on the Company's overall financial condition. As of September 30, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had liabilities for commercial and governmental legal proceedings and claims of $30 million and $15 million, respectively. Additionally, the Company manufactures and derives a portion of its revenue from the sale of pharmaceutical products in the opioid class of drugs, and may therefore face claims arising from the regulation and/or consumption of such products. Although the outcome and costs of the asserted and unasserted claims is difficult to predict, based on the information presently known to management, the Company does not currently expect the ultimate liability, if any, for such matters to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Medicaid Reimbursement and Price Reporting Matters The Company is required to provide pricing information to state agencies, including agencies that administer federal Medicaid programs. Certain state agencies have alleged that manufacturers have reported improper pricing information, which allegedly caused them to overpay reimbursement costs. Other agencies have alleged that manufacturers have failed to timely file required reports concerning pricing information. Reserves are periodically established by the Company for any potential claims or settlements of overpayment. Patent Litigation There is substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical, biological, and biotechnology industries with respect to the manufacture, use, and sale of new products which are the subject of conflicting patent and intellectual property claims. One or more patents often cover the brand name products for which the Company is developing generic versions and the Company typically has patent rights covering the Company’s branded products. Under federal law, when a drug developer files an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for a generic drug seeking approval before expiration of a patent which has been listed with the FDA as covering the brand name product, the developer must certify its product will not infringe the listed patent(s) and/or the listed patent is invalid or unenforceable (commonly referred to as a "Paragraph IV" certification). Notices of such certification must be provided to the patent holder, who may file a suit for patent infringement within 45 days of the patent holder’s receipt of such notice. If the patent holder files suit within the 45-day period, the FDA can review and tentatively approve the ANDA, but generally is prevented from granting final marketing approval of the product until a final judgment in the action has been rendered in favor of the generic drug developer, or 30 months from the date the notice was received, whichever is sooner. The Company’s Generics segment is typically subject to patent infringement litigation brought by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers in connection with the Company’s Paragraph IV certifications seeking an order delaying the approval of the Company’s ANDA until expiration of the patent(s) at issue in the litigation. Likewise, the Company’s Specialty segment is currently involved in patent infringement litigation against generic drug manufacturers that have filed Paragraph IV certifications to market their generic drugs prior to expiration of the Company’s patents at issue in the litigation. The uncertainties inherent in patent litigation make the outcome of such litigation difficult to predict. For the Company’s Generics segment, the potential consequences in the event of an unfavorable outcome in such litigation include delaying launch of its generic products until patent expiration. If the Company were to launch its generic product prior to successful resolution of a patent litigation, the Company could be liable for potential damages measured by the profits lost by the branded product manufacturer rather than the profits earned by the Company if it is found to infringe a valid, enforceable patent, or enhanced treble damages in cases of willful infringement. For the Company’s Specialty segment, an unfavorable outcome may significantly accelerate generic competition ahead of expiration of the patents covering the Company’s branded products. All such litigation typically involves significant expense. The Company is generally responsible for all of the patent litigation fees and costs associated with current and future products not covered by its alliance and collaboration agreements. The Company has agreed to share legal expenses with respect to third-party and Company products under the terms of certain of the alliance and collaboration agreements. The Company records the costs of patent litigation as expense in the period when incurred for products it has developed, as well as for products which are the subject of an alliance or collaboration agreement with a third-party. Patent Infringement Matter Impax Laboratories, LLC. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (Rytary ) On December 21, 2017, Impax filed suit against Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, "Zydus") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,089,608, based on the filing of Zydus’s ANDA relating to carbidopa and levodopa extended release capsules, generic to Rytary ® Other Litigation Related to the Company’s Business Opana ER® FTC Antitrust Litigation On February 25, 2014, Impax received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) concerning its investigation into the drug Opana® ER and its generic equivalents. On March 30, 2016, the FTC filed a complaint against Impax, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Endo"), and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Impax and Endo violated antitrust laws when they entered into a June 2010 co-promotion and development agreement and a June 2010 settlement agreement that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. In July 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and a motion to sever the claims regarding Opana® ER from claims with respect to a separate settlement agreement that was challenged by the FTC. On October 20, 2016, the Court granted the motion to sever, formally terminating the suit against Impax, with an order that the FTC re-file no later than November 3, 2016 and dismissed the motion to dismiss as moot. On October 25, 2016, the FTC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. On January 19, 2017, the FTC filed a Part 3 Administrative complaint against Impax with similar allegations regarding Impax’s June 2010 settlement agreement with Endo that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. Impax filed its answer to the Administrative Complaint on February 7, 2017. Trial concluded on November 15, 2017. On May 11, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Impax and dismissed the case in its entirety. The government appealed this ruling to the FTC. On March 28, 2019, the FTC issued an Opinion & Order reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s initial dismissal decision. The FTC found that Impax had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by engaging in an unfair method of competition, and accordingly entered an order enjoining Impax from entering into anticompetitive reverse patent settlements (or agreements with other generic original Opana® ER manufacturers) and requiring Impax to maintain an antitrust compliance program. On June 6, 2019, the Company filed a Petition for Review of the FTC’s Opinion & Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Company filed its opening appellate brief with the Fifth Circuit on October 3, 2019. On July 12, 2019, the Company received a CID from the FTC concerning an August 2017 settlement agreement between Impax and Endo, which resolved a dispute between the parties regarding, and amended, the above-referenced June 2010 settlement agreement related to Opana® ER. The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue cooperating with the FTC regarding the CID. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the FTC’s underlying investigation. Opana ER® Antitrust Litigation From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER® and Impax. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company and Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons’ Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class actions transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (“N.D. Ill.”) for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by the JPML to the N.D. Ill. to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs’ actions with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.) In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER® and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and served opening expert reports. Defendants’ oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports were filed and served on August 29, 2019. No trial date has been scheduled. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al. In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest’s Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda® IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants’ allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs, subject to Court approval. On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the Company). The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Attorney General of the State of Connecticut Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum On July 14, 2014, Impax received a subpoena and interrogatories (the "Subpoena") from the State of Connecticut Attorney General ("Connecticut AG") concerning its investigation into sales of Impax's generic product, digoxin. According to the Connecticut AG, the investigation is to determine whether anyone engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce which has the effect of (i) fixing, controlling or maintaining prices or (ii) allocating or dividing customers or territories relating to the sale of digoxin in violation of Connecticut state antitrust law. The Company has produced documents and information in response to the Subpoena. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this investigation. United States Department of Justice Investigations On November 6, 2014, Impax disclosed that one of its sales representatives received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ"). In connection with this same investigation, on March 13, 2015, Impax received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ requesting the production of information and documents regarding the sales, marketing, and pricing of certain generic prescription medications. In particular, the DOJ’s investigation currently focuses on four generic medications: digoxin tablets, terbutaline sulfate tablets, prilocaine/lidocaine cream, and calcipotriene topical solution. The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue cooperating with the investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation. On April 30, 2018, Impax received a CID from the Civil Division of the DOJ (the "Civil Division"). The CID requests the production of information and documents regarding the pricing and sale of Impax’s pharmaceuticals and Impax’s interactions with other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. According to the CID, the investigation concerns allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Impax, engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted to the Federal government. The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue cooperating with the Civil Division’s investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation. Texas State Attorney General Civil Investigative Demand On May 27, 2014, a CID was served on Amneal by the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Texas (the "Texas AG") relating to products distributed by Amneal under a specific Amneal labeler code. Shortly thereafter, Amneal received a second CID with respect to the same products sold by Interpharm Holding, Inc. ("Interpharm"), the assets of which had been acquired by Amneal in June 2008. Amneal completed its production of the direct and indirect sales transaction data in connection with the products at issue and provided this information to the Texas AG in November 2015. In May 2016, the Texas AG delivered two settlement demands to Amneal in connection with alleged overpayments made by the State of Texas for such products under its Medicaid programs. For the Amneal and Interpharm products at issue, the Texas AG’s initial demand was for an aggregate total of $36 million based on $16 million in alleged overpayments. After analyzing the Texas AG’s demand, Amneal raised certain questions regarding the methodology used in the Texas AG’s overpayment calculations, including the fact that the calculations treated all pharmacy claims after 2012 for the products at issue as claims for over-the-counter ("OTC") drugs, even though the products were prescription pharmaceuticals. This had the effect of increasing the alleged overpayment because the dispensing fee for OTC drugs was lower than that for prescription drugs. Therefore, the Texas AG’s calculations were derived by subtracting a lower (and incorrect) OTC dispensing fee from the higher (and correct) prescription dispensing fee. The Texas AG later acknowledged this discrepancy. In March 2019, the Texas AG provided Amneal with a re-calculation of the alleged overpayment, and in October 2019, Amneal reached an agreement in principle with the Texas AG to settle the matter. In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation Between March 2016 and January 2019, numerous complaints styled as antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) have been filed against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise The Kroger Co.; Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc. On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“E.D. Pa.”), as In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole. Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants’ motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs’ complaint and six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs’ complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. Document discovery otherwise is proceeding. On May 10, 2019, the Company was named in a civil lawsuit filed by the Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, as well as certain of their current or former sales and marketing executives, regarding an alleged conspiracy to fix prices and allocate or divide customers or markets for various products, including, with respect to the Company, bethanechol chloride tablets, norethindrone acetate, and ranitidine HCL tablets, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiff States seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages (including treble damages and civil penalties), as well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On June 4, 2019, the JPML transferred the lawsuit to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint in their lawsuit, bringing claims on behalf of 9 additional states and territories against several defendants; the relief sought and allegations concerning the Company (including the products allegedly at issue) are unchanged from the original complaint. On July 31, 2019, the Company and Impax were served with a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons filed in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas by 87 health insurance companies and managed health care providers (America’s 1 st On October 11, 2019, opt-out plaintiff United Healthcare Services, Inc. filed a second complaint, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota (United Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., No. 0:19-cv-02696), following on and supplementing its original action, asserting antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The parties anticipate that the lawsuit will be transferred by the JPML to the E.D. Pa. for coordination and consolidation with MDL No. 2724. On October 18, 2019, opt-out plaintiff Humana, Inc. also filed a second complaint, likewise following on supplementing its original action to assert antitrust claims against the Company and other generic pharmaceuticals manufacturers arising from the facts alleged in the above-referenced State Attorneys General lawsuit, and similarly seeking, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuit was filed in the E.D. Pa. (Humana Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth, LLC, et al., No. 2:19-cv 04862), and likely will be incorporated into MDL No. 2724 for coordinated pretrial proceedings. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Prescription Opioid Litigation The Company and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in various matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. The Company is aware that other individuals and states and political subdivisions are filing comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers and parties that have promoted and sold prescription opioid pain relievers, and additional suits may be filed. The complaints, asserting claims under provisions of different state and Federal law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing of opioids, and seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. None of the complaints specifies the exact amount of damages at issue. The Company and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or intend to file motions to dismiss where possible. Each of the opioid-related matters described below is in its early stages. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend these cases. In light of the inherent uncertainties of civil litigation, the Company is not in a position to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters. On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Linda Hughes, as the mother of Nathan Hughes, decedent, filed a complaint in Missouri state court naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Impax, five other pharmaceutical company defendants, and three healthcare provider defendants. Plaintiff alleges that use of defendants’ opioid medications caused the death of her son, Nathan Hughes. The complaint alleges causes of action against Amneal and Impax for strict product liability, negligent product liability, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case was removed to federal court on September 18, 2017. It was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on February 2, 2018 and is part of the multidistrict litigation pending as In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the “MDL”). Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case to Missouri state court. That motion remains pending before the MDL court. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court. On March 15, 2018, plaintiff Scott Ellington, purporting to represent the State of Arkansas, more than sixty counties and a dozen cities, filed a complaint in Arkansas state court naming Gemini Laboratories, LLC and fifty-one other pharmaceutical companies as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Gemini and the other pharmaceutical company defendants improperly marketed, sold, and distributed opioid medications and failed to adequately warn about the risks of those medications. Plaintiffs allege causes of actions against Gemini and the other pharmaceutical company defendants for negligence and nuisance and alleged violations of multiple Arkansas statutes. Plaintiffs request past damages and restitution for monies allegedly spent by the State of Arkansas and the county and city plaintiffs for “extraordinary and additional services” for responding to what plaintiffs term the “Arkansas Opioid Epidemic.” Plaintiffs also seek prospective damages to allow them to “comprehensively intervene in the Arkansas Opioid Epidemic,” punitive and treble damages as provided by law, and their costs and fees. The complaint does not include any specific damage amounts. Gemini filed a general denial and, on June 28, 2018, it joined the other pharmaceutical company defendants in moving to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On January 29, 2019, the Court granted without prejudice Gemini’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Gemini from the litigation on March 22, 2019. On March 27, 2018, plaintiff American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama against Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Impax, and thirty-five other pharmaceutical company defendants. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of insurers that since January 1, 2010, allegedly have been wrongfully required to: (i) reimburse for prescription opioids that allegedly were promoted, sold, and distributed illegally and improperly by the pharmaceutical company defendants; and (ii) incur costs for treatment of overdoses of opioid medications, misuse of those medications, or addiction to them. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but plaintiff’s complaint does not include any allegation of specific damage amounts. On or about May 2, 2018, the case was transferred to the MDL. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court. On May 30, 2018, plaintiff William J. Comstock filed a complaint in Washington state court against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of N |
