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 4. Alliance and Collaboration for additional information. Certain of these arrangements are with related parties. Refer to Note 19. 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, how ever, 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, 2024, charges related to legal matters, net of $94.4 million were associated with a settlement in principle on the primary financial terms for a nationwide resolution to the opioids cases that have been filed and that might have been filed against the Company by states, counties, municipalities, and Native American tribes across the U.S. (refer to the section Civil Prescription Opioid Litigation below). For the three months ended March 31, 2023, credit related to legal matters, net of $0.4 million was comprised of a litigation settlement gain, partially offset by charges for legal proceedings. Liabilities for legal matters were comprised of the following (in thousands): Matter March 31, 2024 December 31, 2023 Opana ER® antitrust litigation $ — $ 50,000 Opana ER® antitrust litigation-accrued interest — 2,347 Civil prescription opioid litigation 30,130 21,189 Other — 3,452 Current portion of liabilities for legal matters $ 30,130 $ 76,988 Civil prescription opioid litigation (Liabilities for legal matters - long term) $ 85,479 $ 316 Refer to the respective discussions below for additional information about the significant matters in the tables above. Refer to Note 21. Commitments and Contingencies in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for a general discussion of Medicaid Reimbursement and Price Reporting Matters and Patent Litigation. Other Litigation Related to the Company’s Business 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 Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“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. As of December 31, 2023, the liability for the final 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. 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. 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 . )) (“MDL No. 2724”). 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. 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 seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties and equitable relief including disgorgement and restitution, and both were incorporated into MDL No. 2724. The June 10, 2020 lawsuit was 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 June 10, 2020 action, 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, and these cases were formally remanded in April 2024. See Connecticut, et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al., 3:19-cv-00710-MPS and Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., 3:20-cv-00803-MPS . 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. No schedule has yet been issued in the May 10, 2019 and June 10, 2020 actions brought by the State Attorneys General, which have now been remanded to the District of Connecticut. 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, but subject to court approval, the hearing date may be rescheduled on consent to May 2025. 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, 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 “Opioid MDL”). The Company is also named in various state court cases pending in seven states. No firm trial dates have been set except in 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 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 February 7, 2024, the Company was dismissed from the Mobile County Board of Health case. The Company previously reported an August 12, 2024 trial date for that case. 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. In late April 2024, the Company reached a settlement in principle on the primary financial terms, with no admission of wrongdoing, for a nationwide resolution to the opioids cases that have been filed and that might have been filed against the Company by states, counties, municipalities, and Native American tribes across the U.S. The settlement in principle is subject to the negotiation and execution of a definitive settlement agreement between the parties. The settlement would be payable over ten years. Under the settlement in principle, the Company would agree to pay $92.5 million in cash and provide $180.0 million (valued at $125/ twin pack) in naloxone nasal spray to help treat opioid overdoses. In lieu of receiving product, the settling parties can opt to receive 25% of the naloxone nasal spray’s value (up to $45.0 million) in cash during the last four years of the ten years payment term, which could increase the total amount of cash the Company would agree to pay up to $137.5 million. As of March 31, 2024, the Company concluded the loss related to the opioid litigation was probable, and the related loss was reasonably estimable considering the settlement in principle. As a result, the Company recorded a charge of $94.4 million associated with the settlement in principle during the three months ended March 31, 2024 to increase the liability as of March 31, 2024, to $115.6 million, of which $85.5 million was classified as long-term. While this liability has been deemed reasonable by the Company’s management, it could significantly change as the definitive settlement agreement is finalized. As of December 31, 2023, the Company had a liability of $21.5 million related to its prescription opioid litigation, of which $0.3 million was classified as long-term. For the remaining cases not covered by the settlement in principle, primarily brought by other hospitals, schools and individuals, the Company has not recorded a liability as of March 31, 2024 or December 31, 2023, 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 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 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. Plaintiffs filed their merits brief on April 10, 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) (“ In re Metformin ”). 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. AvKARE, LLC has been dismissed from this action. Three additional similar putative class action lawsuits filed against Amneal and AvKARE, LLC have been consolidated for discovery and pretrial purposes only, Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 2:20-cv-13728 (D.N.J.), Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al., No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.), and In re Metformin: County of Monmouth, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. , No. 2:23-cv-21001-MAC-MAH (D.N.J.) (“County of Monmouth”). Pursuant to a Stipulation and Order entered on the docket on May 2, 2024, plaintiffs will file a third amended complaint in In re Metformin which includes the claims and parties in County of Monmouth. The third amended complaint must be filed within three days of entry of the Stipulation and Order. Immediately preceding the filing of the third amended complaint, the County of Monmouth First Amended Complaint will be voluntarily dismissed without prejudice. Defendants may file a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint within thirty days of the filing of the third amended complaint. 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 were 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. al , 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 entered an order granting final approval, certifying settlement class, and dismissing class plaintiffs’ against Amneal with prejudice on 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. Thus, all claims against Amneal in the federal and state court have been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice pursuant to settlements. In December 2023, the Company recorded $3.0 million for the settlement of claims associated with Xyrem® antitrust litigation. As of December 31, 2023, the Company had a liability of $2.0 million associated with this settlement, which was paid in January 2024. 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 Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (“Takeda”) and other manufacturers of generic versions of Takeda’s Colcrys® (colchicine), including Amneal ( UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund et al. v. Takeda Pharma. U.S.A., Inc. et al, No. 1:23-cv-10030 (S.D.N.Y.). The plaintiff health plans seek to represent a class of third party payers and alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys® to maintain higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws. On February 28, 2024, Takeda filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 13, 2024 and March 27, 2024, Amneal submitted a letter and brief, respectively, informing the Court of its position that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania lacks personal jurisdiction over Amneal. The deadline for defendants to respond to the complaint is 45 days after the date on which the motion to transfer is resolved. Indian Tax Authority Matters |