Commitments and Contingencies | 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. Refer to Note 5. Alliance and Collaboration for additional information. Certain of these arrangements are with related parties. Refer to Note 21. Related Party Transactions for additional information . 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 its significant legal proceedings which are set forth below. 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. While the Company believes it has meritorious claims and/or defenses to the matters described below (and intends to vigorously prosecute and defend them), the nature and cost of litigation is unpredictable, and an unfavorable outcome of such 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 a potential loss. When the Company has a probable loss for which a reasonable estimate of the liability is a range of losses and no amount within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company records the loss at the low end of the range. 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 unable at this time to estimate the possible loss or the range of loss, if any, associated with such legal proceedings and claims. Any such claims, proceedings, investigations or litigation, regardless of the merits, might result in substantial costs to defend or settle, borrowings under the Company’s debt agreements, restrictions on product use or sales, or otherwise harm the Company’s business. The ultimate resolution of any or all claims, legal proceedings or investigations are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict, could differ materially from the Company’s estimates and could have a material adverse effect on its results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period, or on the its overall financial condition. 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 . An insurance recovery, if any, is recorded in the period in which it is probable the recovery will be realized. For the three months ended March 31, 2023 and 2022, credit related to legal matters, net was $0.4 million and $2.3 million, respectively. Liabilities for legal matters were comprised of the following (in thousands): Matter March 31, 2023 December 31, 2022 Opana ER® antitrust litigation $ 50,000 $ 83,944 Opana ER® antitrust litigation-accrued interest 1,216 1,423 Opana ER® antitrust litigation-imputed interest (1,070) — Civil prescription opioid litigation 20,048 17,993 Galeas v. Amneal 1,200 1,200 Other 4,923 2,923 Current portion of liabilities for legal matters $ 76,317 $ 107,483 Opana ER® antitrust litigation $ — $ 50,000 Opana ER ® antitrust litigation-accrued interest — 847 Opana ER ® antitrust litigation-imputed interest — (1,405) Long-term portion of liabilities for legal matters (included in other long-term liabilities) $ — $ 49,442 Refer to the respective discussions below for additional information on the significant matters in the tables above. 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. Liabilities are periodically established by the Company for any potential claims or settlements of overpayment. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. The ultimate settlement of any potential liability for such claims may be higher or lower than estimated. Federal and State Healthcare Programs In the United Sta tes, many of our products are eligible for reimbursement under federal and state health care programs such as Medicaid, Medicare, TRICARE, and/or state pharmaceutical assistance programs, and as a result, certain federal and state healthcare laws and regulations pertaining to reimbursement are applicable to our business. We could be subject to claims from federal and state healthcare programs for non-compliance with these laws and regulations. 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. 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 the 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. Other Litigation Related to the Company’s Business Opana ER® FTC Matters On February 25, 2014, Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”) received a Civil Investigative Demands (“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 settlement agreement that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. In October 2016, the Court granted Impax’s motion to sever, formally terminating the suit against Impax. In January 2017, the FTC filed a Part 3 Administrative Complaint against Impax with similar allegations regarding the 2010 settlement. Following trial, in May 2018, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Impax and dismissed the Complaint in its entirety. FTC Complaint Counsel appealed the decision to the full Commission, and in March 2019, the FTC issued an Opinion & Order reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. The Opinion & Order did not provide for any monetary damages but enjoined Impax from entering into future agreements containing certain terms. Impax filed a Petition for Review of the FTC’s Opinion & Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on April 13, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision denying Impax’s Petition for Review, effectively affirming the FTC’s Opinion & Order. On September 10, 2021, Impax filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court, which was denied in December 2021. 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 subsequent patent infringement and breach of contract dispute between the parties regarding the above-referenced June 2010 settlement agreement related to Opana® ER. The Company cooperated with the FTC regarding the CID. On January 25, 2021, the FTC filed a complaint against Endo, Impax and Amneal in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the 2017 settlement violated antitrust laws. In April 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint, which the District Court granted on March 24, 2022. The FTC appealed the District Court’s decision in May 2022, which appeal remains pending. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the FTC’s allegations and intends to vigorously defend the action, however, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the litigation. Opana ER® Antitrust Litigation From June 2014 to April 2015, a number of complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) of Opana ER® were filed against Endo and Impax. In June 2022, Impax entered into a preliminary settlement agreement with the class of direct purchasers that, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the resolution of substantially all the direct purchasers’ and individual complainants’ underlying claims and lawsuits in the MDL. At the same time, Impax entered into a settlement agreement with individual complainants that resolved all of their claims and lawsuits in the MDL. Subsequently, Impax entered into a separate preliminary settlement agreement with the class of indirect purchasers that, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the resolution of substantially all the indirect purchasers’ underlying claims and lawsuits in the MDL. The direct purchaser plaintiffs, indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and individual complainants are referred to herein collectively as “the Plaintiffs.” On November 3, 2022, the N.D. Ill. approved the direct purchasers’ settlement. On December 15, 2022, the N.D. Ill. approved the indirect purchasers’ settlement. Pursuant to the settlement agreements, the Company agreed to pay a total of $265.0 million between 2022 and mid-January 2024 to resolve substantially all the Plaintiffs’ claims. The cumulative amount of payments made by the Company pursuant to the settlement agreements was $215.0 million as of March 31, 2023, of which $83.9 million was paid during January 2023, primarily using borrowings under the New Revolving Credit Facility (refer to Note 15. Debt ). As of March 31, 2023, the liability for the remaining settlement payment of $50.0 million and 3% stated interest thereon was included in the current portion of liabilities for legal matters. The remaining imputed interest of $1.1 million as of March 31, 2023 will be recognized to interest expense during the final payment period. The settlement agreements are not an admission of liability or fault by Impax, the Company or its subsidiaries. Upon court approval of the final settlement agreements as discussed above, substantially all the claims and lawsuits in the litigation were resolved. 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. Plaintiff sought, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with the plaintiff, 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), until the disposition of the claims against the non-settling defendants. The remaining defendants subsequently also settled with the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed proposed materials seeking final approval of all settlements, including with the Company, and to finally resolve the case. The Court held a fairness hearing on the proposed settlements on March 23, 2023. All settlements were approved, including as to the Company, and no further action is required. The amount of the settlement was not material to the Company’s consolidated financial statements. 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”). 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 four generic prescription medications. Impax has cooperated in the investigation and produced documents and information in response to the subpoenas from 2014 to 2016. 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 interactions with other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding whether generic pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted to the Federal government. Impax has cooperated with the Civil Division’s investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation. In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation Since March 2016, multiple putative antitrust class action complaints have been filed on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers (or end-payors), and indirect resellers, as well as individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers, and municipalities (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) against manufacturers of generic drugs, including Impax and the Company. The complaints allege a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various generic drugs in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ( In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2724, (E.D. Pa . )). On May 10, 2019, Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various manufacturers and individuals, including the Company, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for multiple generic drugs. On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of nine additional states and territories. On June 10, 2020, Attorneys General of 46 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia filed a new complaint against various manufacturers and individuals, including the Company, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for additional generic drugs. Plaintiff States seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 9, 2021, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of California in addition to the original Plaintiff States. Both the May 10, 2019 and June 10, 2020 lawsuits have been incorporated into MDL No. 2724, and the June 10, 2020 lawsuit has been selected for bellwether status. On March 30, 2022, the State of Alabama voluntarily dismissed all its claims in the two actions against all defendants, including the Company, without prejudice. On February 21, 2023, the Territory of Guam voluntarily dismissed all its claims in the two actions against all defendants, including the Company, with prejudice. On February 27, 2023, the Court addressed defendants’ motions to dismiss the June 10, 2020 bellwether action, holding that the states may not pursue certain federal remedies, and otherwise denying Amneal’s joint and individual motion to dismiss. The court did not analyze the substance of the states’ state law claims, reserving those issues for a separate ruling. On March 24, 2023, certain Defendants including the Company filed a motion requesting that the Court certify for appeal its February 27, 2023 order denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss, arguing that the Order involved two controlling questions of law as to which immediate appellate review is warranted (1) whether the complaint adequately alleges an “overarching conspiracy,” and (2) whether the Court properly deferred adjudication of Defendants’ claim-splitting defense. Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding. The court has entered a Pretrial Order setting a schedule for the bellwether cases, which includes a June 1, 2023 deadline for bellwether fact discovery and a March 13, 2024 deadline for the filing of summary judgment motions. No trial date has been set. On June 3, 2020, the Company and Impax were also named in a putative class action complaint filed in the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto, Ontario against numerous generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, on behalf of a putative class of individuals who purchased generic drugs in the private sector from 2012 to the present ( Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et. al., No. T-607-20). The complaint alleges price fixing, among other claims. On August 23, 2022, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The case has otherwise not progressed to date. Civil Prescription Opioid Litigation The Company and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in various matters filed in state and federal courts relating to the sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. Plaintiffs in these actions include state Attorneys General, county and municipal governments, hospitals, Native American tribes, pension funds, third-party payors and individuals. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other forms of relief based on various causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, as well as alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state and federal controlled substances laws and other statutes. All cases involving the Company also name other manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies as defendants, and there are numerous other cases involving allegations relating to prescription opioid pain relievers against other manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies in which the Company and its affiliates are not named. Nearly all cases pending in federal district courts have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 17-mdl-2804). There are approximately 922 cases in the MDL in which the Company or its affiliates have been named as defendants. Three third-party payor cases were dismissed from the MDL on April 18, 2023. Since December 31, 2022, three additional opioid cases have been filed against the Company or come to the Company’s attention as result of service of a complaint upon the Company. The three cases are: (1) Cuyahoga County, OH et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1:23-op-45003-DAP, which was directly filed in the MDL pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio; (2) The City of Atlanta, GA et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case 1:23-cv-01193-TWT (N.D. Ga.), which is a federal case that will not be consolidated into the MDL; and (3) Palm Beach County, FL et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case 9:23-cv-80431-RLR (S.D. Fla.), another federal case that will not be consolidated into the MDL. The Company is also named in approximately 77 state court cases pending in ten states. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in many of these cases. No firm trial dates have been set except in Alabama (July 24, 2023) and Texas (May 20, 2024 (Dallas County) and September 30, 2024 (Bexar County)). The Company was not involved in the September 2022 trial in New Mexico previously reported because of the settlement the Company reached with the New Mexico Attorney General to resolve the New Mexico Attorney General’s claims against the Company, which was finalized on April 24, 2023. The Company anticipates entry of a Consent Judgment dismissing the New Mexico Attorney General’s lawsuit in May 2023. On August 3, 2022, the Company and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in a Complaint filed in Tennessee state court, along with numerous other manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and healthcare providers, in which it is alleged the defendants are liable in civil damages to six minors who allegedly were born with neonatal abstinence syndrome (“NAS”) allegedly as a result of their biological mothers’ alleged use of diverted prescription opioid medications. The plaintiffs’ claim against each defendant in that case requires plaintiffs to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant intentionally participated in Tennessee in that state’s illegal drug market as defined in the Tennessee Drug Dealer Liability Act. The case is currently stayed, but the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the complaint when the case resumes. On November 1, 2022, the Company entered into a preliminary settlement agreement to resolve all pending litigation brought by West Virginia political subdivisions. The Company also was named in two NAS cases in West Virginia state court which have been consolidated with other West Virginia state court NAS cases before the West Virginia Mass Litigation Panel. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaints on February 3, 2023, which the court granted on April 17, 2023. The Company anticipates entry of an order dismissing the NAS cases in May 2023. Based on the preliminary settlement agreement and preliminary settlement agreement with the states of New Mexico and West Virginia, respectively, and an assessment of the information available, the Company recorded an $18.0 million charge for the year ended December 31, 2022, related to the majority of the MDL and state court cases. Based on an increase in the number of political subdivision cases, the Company recorded a $2.1 million charge for the three months ended March 31, 2023. For the remaining cases, primarily brought by hospitals, pension funds, third-party payors and individuals, the Company has not recorded a liability as of March 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, because it concluded that a loss was not probable and estimable. Securities Class Action On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County against the Company and certain current or former officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19). Plaintiffs alleged that the May 7, 2018, amended registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose that Amneal allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct to fix generic drug prices. On March 28, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement for $25.0 million. On April 29, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. On August 16, 2022, the court gave final approval to the settlement. For the year ended December 31, 2021, the Company recorded a $25.0 million charge associated with this case. For the three months ended March 31, 2022, the Company recorded an insurance recovery of $4.0 million. United States Department of Justice / Drug Enforcement Administration Subpoenas / New York Subpoenas On July 7, 2017, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC received an administrative subpoena issued by the Long Island, NY District Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”) requesting information related to compliance with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements. On or about April 12, 2019 and May 28, 2019, the Company received grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (the “USAO”) relating to similar topics concerning the Company’s suspicious order monitoring program and its compliance with the Controlled Substances Act. The Company is cooperating with the USAO in responding to the subpoenas and has entered civil and criminal tolling agreements with the USAO through approximately November 15, 2023. It is not possible to determine the exact outcome of these investigations. On March 14, 2019, Amneal received a subpoena from an Assistant U.S. Attorney (“AUSA”) for the Southern District of Florida. The subpoena requested information and documents generally related to the marketing, sale, and distribution of oxymorphone. The Company intends to cooperate with the AUSA regarding the subpoena. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of its underlying investigation. On October 7, 2019, Amneal received a subpoena from the New York State Department of Financial Services seeking documents and information related to sales of opioid products in the state of New York. The Company is cooperating with the request and providing responsive information. It is not possible to determine the exact outcome of this investigation. On January 13, 2023, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General, seeking information regarding its business concerning opioid-containing products. The Company is cooperating with the request and providing responsive information. It is not possible to determine the exact timing or outcome of the investigation. Ranitidine Litigation The Company and its affiliates have been named as defendants, along with numerous other brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, retail pharmacy chains, and repackagers of ranitidine-containing products, in In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No. 2924), pending in the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose and/or concealed the alleged inherent presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or “NDMA”) in brand-name Zantac® or generic ranitidine and the alleged associated risk of cancer. Consolidated groups of (a) personal injury plaintiffs, (b) economic loss/medical monitoring class action plaintiffs, and (c) third-party payor plaintiffs have each filed master complaints. The Company or its affiliates have been named in these three master complaints and approximately 313 personal injury short form complaints. On July 8, 2021, the MDL dismissed all claims against the generic drug manufacturers, including the Company and its affiliates, without leave to file further amended complaints. Plaintiffs have appealed the MDL court’s dismissal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has consolidated the appeals of the personal injury cases. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals has not established a briefing schedule yet in the appeals. On June 18, 2020, Amneal was named in a lawsuit filed in New Mexico brought by the New Mexico Attorney General alleging claims of public nuisance, negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws against various brand and generic manufacturers and store-brand distributors of Zantac®/Ranitidine. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as abatement, medical monitoring, restitution, and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction on January 26, 2022, that remains pending. On October 1, 2021, Amneal and Amneal Pha |