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 with third parties. The Company has also licensed certain technologies or IP 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 24. 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 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 year ended December 31, 2023, charges related to legal matters, net were $1.8 million, comprised of $3.9 million in charges associated with Generics civil prescription opioid litigation, a $3.0 million charge for the settlement of a Generics customer claim, a $3.0 million charge for the settlement of Generics commercial antitrust litigation, and a $1.9 million charge for the settlement of a corporate stockholder derivative lawsuit, partially offset by a $10.0 million credit from the settlement of Generics patent infringement matters. For the year ended December 31, 2022, the Company recorded charges related to legal matters, net of $269.9 million , primarily for corporate Opana® ER antitrust litigation of $262.8 million and Generics segment civil prescription opioid litigation of $18.0 million, partially offset by corporate insurance recoveries associated with securities class actions of $15.5 million. For the year ended December 31, 2021, charges related to legal matters, net were for the settlement of a corporate securities class action. Liabilities for legal matters were comprised of the following (in thousands): December 31, Matter 2023 2022 Opana ER® antitrust litigation $ 50,000 $ 83,944 Opana ER® antitrust litigation-accrued interest 2,347 1,423 Civil prescription opioid litigation 21,189 17,993 Other 3,452 4,123 Current portion of liabilities for legal matters $ 76,988 $ 107,483 Opana ER® antitrust litigation $ — $ 50,000 Opana ER ® antitrust litigation-imputed interest — (1,405) Opana ER ® antitrust litigation-accrued interest — 847 Civil prescription opioid litigation 316 — Long-term portion of liabilities for legal matters (included in other long-term liabilities) $ 316 $ 49,442 Refer to the respective discussions below for information about the significant matters summarized 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. 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 IP 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 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 July 12, 2019, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC”) concerning an August 2017 settlement agreement between Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”) and Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Endo”), which resolved a subsequent patent infringement and breach of contract dispute between the parties regarding the 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 U.S. 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. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s dismissal on August 25, 2023. The FTC did not petition the U.S. Supreme Court for review. 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 and consolidated into multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Impax subsequently entered into settlement agreements with all of the Plaintiffs that were subsequently approved by the court. 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 of the plaintiffs’ claims. The cumulative amount of payments made by the Company pursuant to the settlement agreements was $215.0 million as of December 31, 2023, of which $83.9 million was paid during January 2023, primarily using borrowings under the New Revolving Credit Facility (refer to Note 16. Debt ). As of December 31, 2023, the liability for the remaining settlement payment of $50.0 million, plus 3% stated interest thereon was included in the current portion of liabilities for legal matters and was paid in January 2024 with cash on hand. 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. 3% interest was payable on the amounts due in January 2023 and January 2024. The Company included the interest accrual on these amounts as a component of the current and long-term portion of liabilities for legal matters. Additional interest of 2.7% was imputed on the $50.0 million long-term liability due in January 2024, resulting in an initial discount of $2.2 million, which was amortized to interest expense over the life of the liability using the effective interest method. 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 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. On May 15, 2023, Amneal received a CID from the Civil Division requesting information and documents related to the manufacturing and shipping of diclofenac sodium 1% gel labeled as “prescription only” after the reference listed drug’s label was converted to over-the-counter. The Company is cooperating with the Civil Division’s investigation. The Civil Division has not made any claim or demand for damages. 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. The States of Alabama, Hawaii and Arkansas, and the Territory of Guam voluntarily dismissed all of their claims in the two actions against all defendants, including the Company. American Samoa voluntarily dismissed its claims in the May 10, 2019 action and was not named as a plaintiff in the June 10, 2020 action. On February 27, 2023, the Court addressed defendants’ motions to dismiss the bellwether action filed on June 10, 2020, holding that the states may not pursue certain federal remedies, and otherwise denying Amneal’s joint and individual motion to dismiss. On November 1, 2023, the Attorneys General filed a Motion to Remand their cases to the State of Connecticut. On January 21, 2024, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) granted the Motion. However, the JPML stayed the remand order in light of certain defendants’ anticipated petition for a Writ of Mandamus, which defendants filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 22, 2023. Fact discovery in MDL No. 2724 is proceeding as to both bellwether and non-bellwether cases, and expert discovery as to bellwether cases is also underway. 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, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. On May 30, 2023, the plaintiff served materials for their motion to certify the action as a class proceeding, define the class and certify the common questions to be decided, among other things. The certification hearing date is scheduled for December 2024 and the Company is preparing a response to the motion to certify in advance of that date. Civil Prescription Opioid Litigation The Company and certain of its affiliates are named as defendants in over 900 cases filed in state and federal courts relating to the sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. Plaintiffs in these actions include 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 have been 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). The Company is also named in various state court cases pending in seven states. No firm trial dates have been set except in Alabama (August 12, 2024 (Mobile County Board of Health)) and Texas (January 31, 2025, trial-ready date (Dallas County)). The Company reached a settlement agreement with the New Mexico Attorney General to resolve its claims against the Company, which was finalized on April 24, 2023. A Consent Judgment dismissing the case was entered on May 15, 2023. The Company reached a settlement agreement to resolve all pending litigation brought by West Virginia political subdivisions, which was signed on May 25, 2023. The two neonatal abstinence syndrome cases in West Virginia state court were dismissed on May 31, 2023 and were subsequently appealed by the plaintiffs. These appeals remain pending. The hospital cases pending in West Virginia state court were dismissed on May 2, 2023. The Company reached a preliminary settlement with a group of private hospitals in Alabama (the “Alabama Hospitals”) in June 2023 to resolve the hospitals’ claims against the Company. The Company anticipates a final determination approving the settlement by the end of the second quarter of 2024. On January 13, 2023, the Company re ceived 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. On January 4, 2024, the Company received a CID issued by the Alaska Attorney General seeking information regarding its business concerning opioid-containing products. The Company is evaluating the CID. Based on the settlement agreements with the states of New Mexico and West Virginia 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 and the preliminary settlement with the Alabama Hospitals, the Company recorded charges of $3.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2023. For the remaining cases, primarily brought by other hospitals, pension funds, third-party payors and individuals, the Company has not recorded a liability as of December 31, 2023 or December 31, 2022, because it concluded that a loss was not probable and estimable. United States Department of Justice / Drug Enforcement Administration Subpoenas On July 7, 2017, Amneal New York 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 May 15, 2024. 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 for the Southern District of Florida (the “AUSA”). 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. Ranitidine Litigation The Company and its affiliates were 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), 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. On July 8, 2021, the MDL Court dismissed all claims by all plaintiffs against the generic drug manufacturers, including the Company, without leave to file further amended complaints, holding all claims were preempted. Plaintiffs appealed the MDL Court’s dismissals to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 7, 2022, the 11th Circuit affirmed the MDL Court’s dismissal of cases brought by third-party payors. The 11th Circuit raised questions in the appeals of the other cases about the finality of the MDL Court’s judgments, which were resolved in September 2023. Merits briefs are expected to be filed during the second quarter of 2024. The Company and its affiliates have also been named as defendants in various state lawsuits in five states in which the Company has filed motions to dismiss or plans to file motions to dismiss in the future. On August 17, 2023, the judge in the consolidated Illinois state court cases granted a motion to dismiss all such cases in which the Company and affiliates had been named, holding all claims preempted. There are no trial dates involving the Company in any of the state court cases. Metformin Litigation Amneal and AvKARE, LLC (improperly named as AvKARE, Inc.) were named as defendants, along with numerous other manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and wholesalers, in several putative class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, consolidated as In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH). The lawsuits allege economic loss in connection with their purchase or reimbursements due to the alleged contamination of generic metformin products with NDMA. Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims seeking medical monitoring or evaluation due to their consummation of allegedly contaminated metformin. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. On October 17, 2023, co-defendant Rite-Aid filed a suggestion of bankruptcy and automatic stay of proceeding. Two additional similar putative class action lawsuits were filed against Amneal and/or AvKARE in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey and have not been consolidated with In re Metformin: County of Monmouth, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. , No. 2:23-cv-21001-MAC0MAH (D.N.J.) and Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al ., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.). In County of Monmouth , filed against Amneal, AvKARE and numerous other manufacturers and retail pharmacies, Amneal’s response to plaintiffs’ first amended complaint is due March 20, 2024. On February 23, 2024, a stipulation and order was entered which among other things, dismissed specially appearing Amneal Pharmaceuticals Pvt. Ltd. and ordered that the only remaining defendant, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, respond to the complaint within 45 days of the execution of the stipulation on February 22, 2024. On March 29, 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama asserting claims against manufacturers of valsartan, losartan, and metformin based on the alleged presence of nitrosamines in those products. The only allegations against the Company concern metformin ( Davis v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , et al., C.A. No. 2:21-00254 (M.D. Ala.) (the “Davis Action”)). On May 5, 2021, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the Davis Action into the In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation multi-district litigation for pretrial proceedings. Xyrem® (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation Amneal was named as a defendant, along with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”) and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Jazz’s Xyrem® (sodium oxybate), in several class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the generic manufacturers entered into anticompetitive agreements with Jazz in connection with the settlement of patent litigation related to Xyrem®. The actions have been consolidated in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for pretrial proceedings ( In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation , No. 5:20-md-02966-LHK (N.D. Cal.)). Amneal was also named as a defendant in a similar action filed by Aetna Inc. (“Aetna”) in California state court (Aetna Inc. v. Jazz Pharms., Inc. et. All , No. 22CV010951 (Cal. Super. Ct.). The California state court held that it lacks jurisdiction over several defendants, including Amneal, on December 27, 2022, and later issued an order dismissing Amneal without prejudice. On August 25, 2023, Aetna filed a motion seeking leave to file a second amended complaint adding Amneal as a defendant, which the Court tentatively granted on October 20, 2023. Aetna filed a second amended complaint naming Amneal on November 17, 2023. On February 28, 2023, Amneal executed a $1.9 million settlement agreement with class plaintiffs in the federal litigation. Class plaintiffs filed a motion for final approval of the settlement on November 10, 2023, and a hearing on the issue is scheduled for April 17, 2024. On December 18, 2023, Amneal executed a $4.0 million settlement with Aetna, United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”), Humana Inc. (“Humana”), Molina Healthcare Inc. (“Molina”), and Health Care Service Corporation (“HCSC”). Pursuant to that settlement, the federal court dismissed United, Humana, Molina and HCSC’s claims against Amneal, with prejudice, on February 26, 2024, and the California state court dismissed Aetna’s claims against Amneal, with prejudice, on February 29, 2024. For the years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022, the Company recorded $3.0 million and $2.9 million, respectively, for the settlement of claims associated with Xyrem® antitrust litigation. Value Drug Company v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. On August 5, 2021, Value Drug Company filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (“Takeda”) and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Takeda’s Colcrys® (colchicine), including Amneal, seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers and alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys® in order to maintain higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws. On April 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to add 18 former direct purchaser class members as plaintiffs, which the Court subsequently granted. Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint did not add any new legal theories or allegations. On April 14, 2023, the Court entered a scheduling order setting a 22-day jury trial to begin on September 5, 2023. On September 5, 2023, Amneal entered into a settlement agreement with plaintiffs, pursuant to which plaintiffs dismissed with prejudice all claims against Amneal. During the year ended December 31, 2023, the Company recorded a $3.0 million charge for the settlement of this claim. UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. On November 14, 2023, UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund and other health plans filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Takeda and numerous other manufacturers of gene |