| Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies The Company has entered into strategic business agreements for the development and marketing of pharmaceutical products with various companies. Each strategic business agreement generally includes a future payment schedule for contingent milestone payments and in certain agreements, minimum royalty payments. The Company will be responsible for contingent milestone payments and minimum royalty payments to these strategic business partners based upon the occurrence of future events. Each strategic business agreement defines the triggering event of its future payment schedule, such as meeting product development progress timeline, successful product testing and validation, successful clinical studies, U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") or other regulatory approvals and other factors as negotiated in each agreement. None of the contingent milestone payments or minimum royalty payments is individually material to the Company. The Company is engaged in various supply agreements with third parties that obligate the Company to purchase various active pharmaceutical ingredients or finished products at contractual minimum levels. None of these agreements is individually or in aggregate material to the Company. Further, the Company does not believe at this time that any of the purchase obligations represent levels above that of normal business demands. The table below summarizes contingent, potential milestone payments that would become due to strategic partners in the years 2019 and beyond, assuming all such contingencies occur (in thousands): Year ending December 31, Milestone Payments 2019 $ 121 2020 2,099 2021 2,150 2022 550 Total $ 4,920 Legal Proceedings Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG On April 22, 2018, Fresenius Kabi AG delivered to Akorn a letter purporting to terminate the Merger Agreement. On April 23, 2018, Akorn filed a verified complaint entitled Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Quercus Acquisition, Inc. and Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA , in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) the defendants anticipatorily breached their obligations under the Merger Agreement by repudiating their obligation to close the Merger, (ii) the defendants knowingly and intentionally breached their obligations under the Merger Agreement by working to slow the antitrust approval process and by engaging in a series of actions designed to hamper and ultimately block the Merger and (iii) Akorn had performed its obligations under the Merger Agreement, and was ready, willing and able to close the Merger. The complaint sought, among other things, a declaration that Fresenius Kabi AG’s termination was invalid, an order enjoining the defendants from terminating the Merger Agreement, and an order compelling the defendants to specifically perform their obligations under the Merger Agreement to use reasonable best efforts to consummate and make effective the Merger. On April 30, 2018, the defendants filed a verified counterclaim alleging that, due primarily to purported data integrity deficiencies, the Company had breached representations, warranties and covenants in the Merger Agreement, and that it had experienced a material adverse effect. The verified counterclaim sought, among other things, a declaration that defendants’ purported termination of the Merger Agreement was valid and that defendants were not obligated to consummate the transaction, and damages. Following expedited discovery, from July 9 to 13, 2018, the Court of Chancery held a trial on the parties’ claims (the “Delaware Action”). At the conclusion of trial, the Court of Chancery ordered post-trial briefing, which was completed on August 20, 2018, and a post-trial hearing, which was held on August 23, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) denying Akorn’s claims for relief and concluding that Fresenius Kabi AG had validly terminated the Merger Agreement. The Court of Chancery concluded that Akorn had experienced a material adverse effect due to its financial performance following the signing of the Merger Agreement; that Akorn had breached representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement and that those breaches would reasonably be expected to give rise to a material adverse effect; that Akorn had materially breached covenants in the Merger Agreement; and that Fresenius was materially in compliance with its own contractual obligations. On October 17, 2018, the Court of Chancery entered partial final judgment against Akorn on its claims and in favor of the Fresenius parties on their claims for declaratory judgment. The Court of Chancery entered an order holding proceedings on the Fresenius parties’ damages claims in abeyance pending the resolution of any appeal from the partial final judgment. On October 18, 2018, Akorn filed a notice of appeal from the Opinion and the partial final judgment, as well as a motion seeking expedited treatment of its appeal. On October 23, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court granted Akorn’s motion for expedited treatment and set a hearing on Akorn’s appeal for December 5, 2018. On December 7, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s opinion denying Akorn’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and granting Defendants’ counterclaim for a declaration that the termination was valid. On December 27, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a mandate returning the case to the Court of Chancery for consideration of all remaining issues, including the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. On January 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter to the Court of Chancery seeking thirty days to discuss the potential resolution of the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. On February 19, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter advising the Court that they have been unable to resolve the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. The Fresenius parties stated their intention to seek leave to amend their counterclaims to assert a new claim for fraud and that they would seek an expedited trial on such claim purportedly due to Akorn’s financial condition. Akorn stated that it expected to oppose the motions for amendment and expedition, and that it would move to dismiss the Fresenius parties’ damages claims in their entirety. On February 20, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a motion for leave to amend and supplement their counterclaim. The Fresenius parties’ proposed amended and supplemented counterclaim alleged that Akorn fraudulently induced Fresenius to enter into the Merger Agreement and thereafter breached contractual representations and warranties and covenants therein. It sought damages of approximately $102 million . On February 25, 2019, Akorn filed an opposition to the Fresenius parties’ motion for leave to amend and supplement their counterclaim, arguing that the motion was untimely and prejudicial. On February 27, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a reply in further support of their motion to file an amended and supplemented counterclaim. On February 28, 2019, the Court of Chancery denied the Fresenius parties’ motion for leave to file an amended and supplemented counterclaim. On August 16, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a motion for summary judgment seeking damages of approximately $123 million . On September 30, 2019, Akorn filed a combined cross-motion for summary judgment and opposition to the Fresenius parties’ motion. The Court of Chancery has approved a briefing schedule whereby (i) the Fresenius parties file a combined opposition to Akorn’s cross-motion and a reply in further support of the Fresenius parties’ motion by November 14, 2019; and (ii) Akorn files a reply in further support of its cross-motion for summary judgment by December 9, 2019. In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn, Inc. et al ., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief Accounting Officer Randall Pollard. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity at the Company. The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company disputes these claims. On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co. Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and amending the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation (the “Securities Class Action Litigation”). On June 26, 2018, the Court denied a motion to lift the PSLRA stay, subject to entry of a preservation order. On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald M. Johnson, Brian Tambi, John Kapoor, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Steven J. Meyer and Terry A. Rappuhn. The amended complaint asserted (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Fraud Claims”) against Defendants Akorn, Rai, Portwood, Silverberg, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Proxy Claims”) against defendants Akorn, Rai, Kapoor, Weinstein, Abramowitz, Graves, Johnson, Meyer, Rappuhn and Tambi. The amended complaint alleged that, during a class period from November 3, 2016, to April 20, 2018, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn’s manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company’s data integrity at its facilities. The amended complaint alleged that corrective information was provided to the market on two separate dates, causing non-insider shareholders to lose over $1.07 billion and $613 million in value respectively. The amended complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages. On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and defendants. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ joint motion, dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice; dismissing defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn without prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with prejudice. On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Wickstrom Action”). The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the Company’s facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. On March 8, 2019, the parties in the Securities Class Action Litigation filed a proposed stipulation which sought, among other things: (i) leave to file a second amended class action complaint, which would extend the end date of the alleged class period from November 3, 2016, through September 28, 2018; (ii) to consolidate the Wickstrom complaint into the Securities Class Action Litigation for all purposes; and (iii) to extend the existing discovery schedule in order to permit time to mediate lead plaintiffs’ claims and to conduct additional discovery related to the expanded class period. During a March 27, 2019 conference, the Court found that the Wickstrom Action was related to the Securities Class Action Litigation and ordered oral argument for April 22, 2019, on lead plaintiffs’ requests to file a second amended complaint and to consolidate the Wickstrom complaint. Following the March 27, 2019 hearing, the Court entered an order finding the Securities Class Action Litigation and Wickstrom Action to be related and requesting the reassignment of the Wickstrom Action. The Court also extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines. On April 22, 2019, Plaintiff Vicente Juan, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Juan Action”). The complaint named as defendants the Company, Rai and Portwood. The complaint alleged that defendants made or caused the Company to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the Company’s facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Also on April 22, 2019, lead plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys, filed a second amended complaint against the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The second amended complaint alleges that, during a class period from November 3, 2016, to January 8, 2019, defendants knew or recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn’s manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and/or omissions of material fact concerning the Company’s data integrity at its facilities. The second amended complaint alleges that corrective information was provided to the market on three separate dates. The second amended complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages. On April 23, 2019, the Court entered an order finding the Securities Class Action Litigation and Juan Action to be related and requesting reassignment of the Juan Action. On May 3, 2019, the Company and lead plaintiffs commenced mediation. On May 9, 2019, the Court entered an order consolidating both the Wickstrom Action and the Juan Action with and into the Securities Class Action Litigation. The Court also extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines. On May 31, 2019, Plaintiffs Twin Master Fund, Ltd., Twin Opportunities Fund, LP and Twin Securities, Inc., purported shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the “Twin Master Fund Action”). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages and expenses. Following a June 5, 2019 conference, the Court extended the discovery and pretrial deadlines. On June 11, 2019, the Court entered an order finding the Securities Class Action Litigation and Twin Master Fund Action to be related and requesting reassignment of the Twin Master Fund Action. On July 5, 2019, lead plaintiffs filed a motion seeking certification of a proposed class of all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Akorn’s common stock between November 3, 2016 and January 8, 2019, inclusive, and were damaged thereby. On July 10, 2019, Plaintiffs Manikay Master Fund, LP and Manikay Merger Fund, LP, purported shareholders of the Company, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b), 18 and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and common law fraud (the “Manikay Master Fund Action”). The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rai, Portwood, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi. The complaint alleges that defendants made or caused Akorn to make materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning the Company’s compliance with FDA regulations, among other things. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, punitive damages and expenses. On July 25, 2019, after extensive arm’s-length negotiations, the parties in the Securities Class Action Litigation reached a non-binding agreement in principle, memorialized in a signed term sheet, with respect to the principal terms of a settlement that, if consummated, would provide for, among other things, the dismissal of that action and the release of all claims asserted by or on behalf of the putative class in that action. Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, the putative class would release its claims in exchange for a combination of (i) up to $30 million in insurance proceeds from the Company's D&O insurance policies (the "D&O Proceeds Payment"), (ii) the issuance by the Company of approximately 6.5 million shares of the Company's common stock and any additional shares of Company common stock that are released as a result of the expiration of out of the money options through December 31, 2024 and (iii) the issuance by the Company of contingent value rights ("CVR") with a five year term, subject to an extension of up to two years under certain circumstances. Under the terms of the non-binding agreement in principle, holders of the CVR would be entitled to receive an annual cash payment from the Company of 33.3% of "Excess EBITDA" (i.e., earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) above the amount of EBITDA required to meet a 3.0 x net leverage ratio, assuming a $100.0 million minimum cash cushion, before any such CVR payment is triggered). To the extent any such annual payments are triggered under the CVR, they are capped at an aggregate of $12.0 million per year and $60.0 million in the aggregate during the term of the CVR. Upon certain change of control transactions during the term of the CVR, if the Company’s first lien term loan lenders and holders of the Company’s other debt are repaid in full, the CVR would entitle the holders thereof to a cash payment in the aggregate amount of $30.0 million (the "Change of Control Payment"). If the Company is the subject of a voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy filing during the term of the CVR, the CVR agreement would provide that holders of the CVR would receive in the aggregate a $30.0 million unsecured claim (which unsecured claim will be subordinated to any deficiency claim of the Company's first lien term loan lenders and holders of the Company's other secured debt in any such bankruptcy case) (the "Bankruptcy Claim"). The $60.0 million cap on annual payments would not apply to the Change of Control Payment or the Bankruptcy Claim, if any. No further amounts would be payable under the CVR following such a change of control transaction or bankruptcy event. The Company and the other defendants in the Securities Class Action Litigation have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the action, and the entry into the non-binding agreement in principle is not an admission of wrongdoing or acceptance of fault by the Company or any of the other defendants. At a July 30, 2019 conference, the parties to the Securities Class Action Litigation disclosed to the Court that they had reached a non-binding agreement in principle to settle the action. At the July 30, 2019 conference, the Court entered a finding of relatedness with respect to the Manikay Master Fund Action, and requested reassignment of that action. On August 9, 2019, the lead plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, approval of the form of class notice and a hearing date for final settlement approval (the “Final Approval Hearing”), with supporting papers. On August 26, 2019, the Court formally entered an order (the “Preliminary Approval Order”) preliminarily approving the proposed settlement, approving the form of class notice, and setting a hearing on final approval of the settlement for December 3, 2019. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order: lead plaintiffs shall file a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, the proposed plan of allocation and lead counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses no later than thirty-five (35) calendar days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, or October 29, 2019; any potential class members seeking to exclude themselves from or object to the proposed settlement shall file requests for exclusion or objections no later than twenty-one (21) calendar days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, or November 12, 2019; and lead plaintiffs shall file reply papers, if any, in further support of lead plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the proposed settlement, the proposed plan of allocation and lead counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the Final Approval Hearing, or November 26, 2019. The definitive settlement agreement is subject to numerous terms and conditions including, among other things, (i) the unilateral right of the Company and the other defendants in the action to terminate the definitive settlement agreement if persons who purchased a number of shares exceeding a to be agreed threshold opt out of and elect not to participate in or be bound by the proposed settlement and (ii) final approval by the Court. There can be no guarantee that the Company and the other defendants will not exercise their termination right or that the definitive settlement agreement will receive Court approval. By orders dated September 11, 2019, in light of the definitive settlement agreement, the Court disassociated the Twin Master Fund Action and the Manikay Master Fund Action from the Securities Class Action Litigation. On September 13, 2019, defendants in the Twin Master Fund Action and Manikay Master Fund Action moved to dismiss both complaints. On September 16, 2019, the Securities Class Action Litigation was reassigned to the Honorable Steven Seeger. During a status conference on October 29, 2019, the court reaffirmed the December 3, 2019 date for the Final Approval Hearing. On October 15, 2019, plaintiffs in the Twin Master Fund Action and Manikay Master Fund Action filed oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss both complaints. Kogut v. Akorn, Inc. et. al. On March 8, 2016, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative derivative suit entitled Kogut v. Akorn, Inc., et al ., in Louisiana state court in the Parish of East Baton Rouge. On June 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting shareholder derivative claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s accounting for its acquisition and the restatement of its financials. On September 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. The case was subsequently stayed. On September 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which added claims for shareholder derivative claims alleging breaches by certain present and former officers and directors of Akorn of fiduciary duties related to, among other matters, Akorn’s compliance with FDA regulations and requirements regarding data integrity. On December 3, 2018, the Company and certain individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on January 31, 2019. On February 4, 2019, the court held a hearing, at which it instructed the parties to confer concerning the possible retention of a special master to resolve the pending motions to dismiss and to oversee any proceedings thereafter. After conferring, the parties jointly proposed a candidate for special master. On March 6, 2019, the Court entered an order appointing the parties’ proposed candidate as special master. On May 13, 2019, the special master issued a report and recommendation on defendants’ motion to dismiss. The report and recommendation recommends dismissing from the case the Company and all named defendants other than Mark Silverberg. On July 11, 2019, the plaintiff filed a third amended complaint naming as defendants former Akorn officers Rajat Rai, Bruce Kutinsky, Steven Lichter and Mark Silverberg, as well as nominal defendant Akorn. The third amended complaint purports to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that Akorn’s former officers: (i) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by intentionally causing Akorn to not comply with FDA regulations; and (ii) were unjustly enriched thereby. The third amended complaint seeks an award of damages and injunctive relief. On October 7, 2019, the Court entered an order adopting the findings of the special master, dismissing without prejudice all named individual defendants other than Mark Silverberg, granting plaintiffs leave to file their third amended complaint and granting defendants 30 days to move to dismiss the third amended complaint. The defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the action. Pulchinski v. Abramowitz et al. On September 26, 2019, Dennis Pulchinski, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative suit captioned Pulchinski v. Abramowitz et al ., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL. The suit alleges breaches by certain present and former officers and directors of Akorn of fiduciary duties related to, among other matters, Akorn’s compliance with FDA regulations and requirements regarding data integrity. In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On October 15, 2018, Dale Trsar, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative suit captioned Trsar v. Kapoor, et al. , in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL. The suit alleged breaches by certain present and former officers and directors of Akorn of fiduciary duties related to, among other matters, Akorn’s compliance with FDA regulations and requirements regarding data integrity. On October 26, 2018, Trsar moved to dismiss the complaint voluntarily. On November 5, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff Trsar’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On November 6, 2018, Trsar filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Trsar v. Kapoor, et al. against defendants John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Trsar Action”). The complaint purports to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; and (ii) the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to Akorn shareholders on November 14, 2016 and March 20, 2017. The complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages. On December 10, 2018, Felix Glaubach, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Glaubach v. Kapoor, et al. against John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Mark M. Silverberg, Duane A. Portwood, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson, and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Glaubach Action”). The complaint purported to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; (ii) John N. Kapoor and Brian Tambi breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by misappropriating inside information in connection with sales of the Company’s stock; (iii) Rajat Rai and Duane A. Portwood were unjustly enriched; (iv) the Defendants wasted the Company’s assets; and (v) the Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to the Company’s shareholders. The complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages. On January 11, the Glaubach Action was consolidated with the Trsar Action, with the complaint filed in the Trsar Action designated as operative, and the case caption was amended to In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On January 14, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 14, 2019. Defendants filed a reply memorandum of law in further support of their motion to dismiss on February 28, 2019. On March 29, 2019, defendants filed a motion to amend their motion to dismiss to reflect the appointment of a special master by the court in Kogut v. Akorn, Inc., et al . On April 1, 2019, the Court entered an order granting defendants’ motion to amend their motion to dismiss. On May 24, 2019, defendants filed a motion to defer the Court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss in light of the special master’s recommendation and report in Kogut v. Akorn, Inc., et al . On June 10, 2019, the Court entered an order denying defendants’ motion to defer the Court’s ruling on defendants’ motion to dismiss. Pope v. Akorn Sales Inc. and Akorn, Inc. On April 7, 2017, a jury in the State Court of Houston County in the State of Georgia reached a verdict of $20.5 million in damages against Akorn, Inc. in a product liability case, Ann Pope and Anthony Pope v. Horatio V. Cabasares, M.D., Horatio V. Cabasares, M.D., P.C. Houston Healthcare Systems, Inc., Akorn Sales, Inc., and Akorn, Inc., in which plaintiffs claimed the Company provided inadequate labeling on its product methylene blue. While an intermediate appellate decision affirmed the verdict on November 2, 2018, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court on November 29, 2018, challenging liability as well as the compensatory and punitive damage awards. On August 5, 2019, the Georgia Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. On September 13, 2019, Akorn paid the judgment amount to the plaintiffs. ========================================================================================== The legal matters discussed above and others could result in losses, including damages, fines and civil penalties, and criminal charges, which could be substantial. We record accruals for these contingencies to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. Regarding the aforementioned labeling verdict and intermediate appellate decision related to Methylene Blue Injection, the Company had recorded a $20.5 million liability as of December 31, 2018 for which a corresponding insurance receivable of $8.8 million was also recorded. As of September 30, 2019 the Company’s primary insurance carrier reimbursed Akorn the $8.8 million , the remaining limits available on that policy, which partially offset the approximately $24 million , inclusive of interest, Akorn paid to plaintiffs. The Company maintains product liability insurance coverage in excess of the amount of the verdict, and is currently involved in litigation with its excess insurer to recover the remainder of the judgment amount. Regarding the other matters disclosed above, the Compan |
