| Commitments and contingencies | NOTE 10 – Commitments and contingencies: General From time to time, Teva and/or its subsidiaries are subject to claims for damages and/or equitable relief arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as described below, in large part as a result of the nature of its business, Teva is frequently subject to litigation. Teva generally believes that it has meritorious defenses to the actions brought against it and vigorously pursues the defense or settlement of each such action. Teva records a provision in its financial statements to the extent that it concludes that a contingent liability is probable and the amount thereof is estimable. Based upon the status of the cases described below, management’s assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of counsel, no provisions have been made regarding the matters disclosed in this note, except as noted below. Litigation outcomes and contingencies are unpredictable, and excessive verdicts can occur. Accordingly, management’s assessments involve complex judgments about future events and often rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Teva continuously reviews the matters described below and may, from time to time, remove previously disclosed matters where the exposures were fully resolved in the prior year, or determined to no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure, or were substantially resolved. In the first quarter of 2021, Teva has removed the bortezomib intellectual property litigation as it was fully resolved during 2020. In addition, Teva has removed PROVIGIL ® If one or more of such proceedings described below were to result in final judgments against Teva, such judgments could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. In addition, Teva incurs significant legal fees and related expenses in the course of defending its positions even if the facts and circumstances of a particular litigation do not give rise to a provision in the financial statements. In connection with third-party agreements, Teva may under certain circumstances be required to indemnify, and may be indemnified by, in unspecified amounts, the parties to such agreements against third-party claims. Among other things, Teva’s agreements with third parties may require Teva to indemnify them, or require them to indemnify Teva, for the costs and damages incurred in connection with product liability claims, in specified or unspecified amounts. Except as otherwise noted, all of the litigation matters disclosed below involve claims arising in the United States. Except as otherwise noted, all third party sales figures given below are based on IQVIA (formerly IMS Health Inc.) data. Intellectual Property Litigation From time to time, Teva seeks to develop generic versions of patent-protected pharmaceuticals for sale prior to patent expiration in various markets. In the United States, to obtain approval for most generics prior to the expiration of the originator’s patents, Teva must challenge the patents under the procedures set forth in the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, as amended. To the extent that Teva seeks to utilize such patent challenge procedures, Teva is and expects to be involved in patent litigation regarding the validity, enforceability or infringement of the originator’s patents. Teva may also be involved in patent litigation involving the extent to which its product or manufacturing process techniques may infringe other originator or third-party patents. Additionally, depending upon a complex analysis of a variety of legal and commercial factors, Teva may, in certain circumstances, elect to market a generic version even though litigation is still pending. To the extent Teva elects to proceed in this manner, it could face substantial liability for patent infringement if the final court decision is adverse to Teva, which could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. Teva could also be sued for patent infringement outside of the context of the Hatch-Waxman Act. For example, Teva could be sued for patent infringement after commencing sales of a product. In addition, for biosimilar products, Teva could be sued according to the “patent dance” procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The general rule for damages in patent infringement cases in the United States is that the patentee should be compensated by no less than a reasonable royalty and it may also be able, in certain circumstances, to be compensated for its lost profits. The amount of a reasonable royalty award would generally be calculated based on the sales of Teva’s product. The amount of lost profits would generally be based on the lost sales of the patentee’s product. In addition, the patentee may seek consequential damages as well as enhanced damages of up to three times the profits lost by the patent holder for willful infringement, although courts have typically awarded much lower multiples. Teva is also involved in litigation regarding patents in other countries where it does business, particularly in Europe. The laws concerning generic pharmaceuticals and patents differ from country to country. Damages for patent infringement in Europe may include lost profits or a reasonable royalty, but enhanced damages for willful infringement are generally not available. In July 2014, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) sued Teva in Delaware federal court for infringement of a patent directed to using carvedilol in a specified manner to decrease the risk of mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Teva and eight other generic producers began selling their carvedilol tablets (the generic version of GSK’s Coreg®) i n September 2007. A jury trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in GSK’s favor finding Teva liable for induced infringement, including willful infringement, and assessing damages of $ 235.5 million, not including pre- or post-judgment interest or a multiplier for willfulness. Thereafter, the judge overturned the jury verdict, finding no induced infringement by Teva and that Teva did not owe any damages. On October 2, 2020, in a two-to-one decision, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, overturned the judge’s ruling and reinstated the jury verdict. Teva’s request for rehearing was granted, and the October 2020 decision was vacated. On February 23, 2021, the same three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit heard additional oral argument on the issue of whether there is enough evidence to support the jury’s verdict of induced infringement during the period from January 8, 2008 through April 30, 2011 (the “skinny label” period). If further appeals are decided against Teva, the case would be remanded to the district court for it to consider Teva’s other legal and equitable defenses that have not yet been considered by the district court. In the first quarter of 2021, Teva recognized a provision based on its offer to settle such matter. Product Liability Litigation Teva’s business inherently exposes it to potential product liability claims. Teva maintains a program of insurance, which may include commercial insurance, self-insurance (including direct risk retention), or a combination of both approaches, in amounts and on terms that it believes are reasonable and prudent in light of its business and related risks. However, Teva sells, and will continue to sell, pharmaceuticals that are not covered by its product liability insurance; in addition, it may be subject to claims for which insurance coverage is denied as well as claims that exceed its policy limits. Product liability coverage for pharmaceutical companies is becoming more expensive and increasingly difficult to obtain. As a result, Teva may not be able to obtain the type and amount of insurance it desires, or any insurance on reasonable terms, in all of its markets. Teva and its subsidiaries are parties to litigation relating to previously unknown nitrosamine impurities discovered in certain products. The discovery led to a global recall of single and combination valsartan medicines around the world starting in July 2018 and to subsequent recalls on other products. The nitrosamine impurities in valsartan are allegedly found in the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) supplied by multiple API manufacturers. Teva’s products allegedly at issue in the various nitrosamine-related litigations pending in the United States include valsartan, losartan, metformin and ranitidine. There are currently two Multi-District Litigations (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Courts against Teva and numerous other manufacturers. One MDL is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for valsartan, losartan and irbesartan. Teva is not named in complaints with respect to irbesartan. The second MDL is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for ranitidine. The lawsuits against Teva in the MDLs consist of individual personal injury and/or product liability claims and economic damages claims brought by consumers and end payors on behalf of purported classes of other consumers and end payors as well as medical monitoring class claims. Defendants’ motions to dismiss in the valsartan, losartan and irbesartan MDL were denied in part and granted in part, allowing plaintiffs to file amended complaints. On December 31, 2020, the court in the ranitidine MDL granted the generic defendants’ motion to dismiss on the grounds of preemption and deficient pleading, allowing plaintiffs to re-plead certain claims. Certain plaintiffs appealed the decision. Plaintiffs in the ranitidine MDL filed amended complaints, and on March 24, 2021, defendants moved to dismiss those amended complaints on largely the same grounds as the first round of motions to dismiss. In addition to these MDLs, Teva has also been named in a consolidated proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey brought by individuals and end payors seeking economic damages on behalf of purported classes of consumers and end payors who purchased Teva’s, as well as other generic manufacturers’ metformin products. A motion to dismiss in that consolidated action is pending. Similar lawsuits are pending in Canada and Germany. Competition Matters As part of its generic pharmaceuticals business, Teva has challenged a number of patents covering branded pharmaceuticals, some of which are among the most widely-prescribed and well-known drugs on the market. Many of Teva’s patent challenges have resulted in litigation relating to Teva’s attempts to market generic versions of such pharmaceuticals under the federal Hatch-Waxman Act. Some of this litigation has been resolved through settlement agreements in which Teva obtained a license to market a generic version of the drug, often years before the patents expire. Teva and its subsidiaries have increasingly been named as defendants in cases that allege antitrust violations arising from such settlement agreements. The plaintiffs in these cases, which are usually direct and indirect purchasers of pharmaceutical products, and often assert claims on behalf of classes of all direct and indirect purchasers, typically allege that (1) Teva received something of value from the innovator in exchange for an agreement to delay generic entry, and (2) significant savings could have been realized if there had been no settlement agreement and generic competition had commenced earlier. These class action cases seek various forms of injunctive and monetary relief, including damages based on the difference between the brand price and what the generic price allegedly would have been and disgorgement of profits, which are automatically tripled under the relevant statutes, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The alleged damages generally depend on the size of the branded market and the length of the alleged delay, and can be substantial—potentially measured in multiples of the annual brand sales—particularly where the alleged delays are lengthy or branded drugs with annual sales in the billions of dollars are involved. Teva believes that its settlement agreements are lawful and serve to increase competition, and has defended them vigorously. In Teva’s experience to date, these cases have typically settled for a fraction of the high end of the damages sought, although there can be no assurance that such outcomes will continue. In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held, in Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) v. Actavis, Inc. (the “AndroGel case”), that a rule of reason test should be applied in analyzing whether such settlements potentially violate the federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court held that a trial court must analyze each agreement in its entirety in order to determine whether it violates the antitrust laws. This new test has resulted in increased scrutiny of Teva’s patent settlements, additional action by the FTC and state and local authorities, and an increased risk of liability in Teva’s currently pending antitrust litigations. In May 2015, Cephalon Inc., a Teva subsidiary (“Cephalon”), entered into a consent decree with the FTC (the “Modafinil Consent Decree”) under which the FTC dismissed antitrust claims against Cephalon related to certain finished modafinil products (marketed as PROVIGIL ® In November 2020, the European Commission issued a final decision in its proceedings against both Cephalon and Teva, finding that the 2005 settlement agreement between the parties had the object and effect of hindering the entry of generic modafinil, and imposed fines totaling € million on Teva and Cephalon. Teva and Cephalon filed an appeal against the decision in February 2021. A provision for this matter was included in the financial statements. Teva and its affiliates have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging that multiple patent litigation settlement agreements relating to AndroGel ® violate the antitrust laws. The first of these lawsuits (the “Georgia AndroGel Litigation”) was filed in January 2009 in California federal court, and later transferred to Georgia federal court, with the FTC and the State of California, and later private plaintiffs challenging a September 2006 patent litigation settlement between Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Watson”), from which Teva later acquired certain assets and liabilities, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Solvay”). The second lawsuit (the “Philadelphia AndroGel Litigation”) was filed by the FTC in September 2014 in federal court in Philadelphia, challenging Teva’s December 2011 patent litigation settlement with AbbVie. The FTC stipulated to dismiss Teva from both litigations, in exchange for Teva’s agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree, as described above. On July 16, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in the Georgia AndroGel Litigation was denied and Teva later settled with most of the retailer plaintiffs in the Georgia AndroGel Litigation as well as the three direct purchasers that had sought class certification and on January 7, 2021, Teva settled all claims with the remaining retailer plaintiff in the Georgia AndroGel Litigation, thus leaving no remaining claims in the Georgia AndroGel Litigation. In August 2019, certain other direct-purchaser plaintiffs (who would have been members of the direct purchaser class in the Georgia AndroGel Litigation, had it been certified) filed their own claims in the federal court in Philadelphia (where the Philadelphia AndroGel Litigation has been pending), challenging (in one complaint) both the September 2006 settlement between Watson and Solvay, and the December 2011 settlement between Teva and AbbVie. Those claims remain pending. Annual sales of AndroGel ® 1% were approximately $ 350 million at the time of the earlier Watson/Solvay settlement and approximately $ 140 million at the time Actavis launched its generic version of AndroGel ® In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR ® ® ® In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva in New Jersey federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamicta l ® ) e ntered into in February 2005. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the court dismissed the case, but in June 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In December 2018, the district court granted the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but on April 22, 2020, the Third Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded for further class certification proceedings. On April 9, 2021, the district court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. Annual sales of Lamictal ® were approximately $ 950 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $ 2.3 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal ® in July 2008. In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end payers for, Niaspan ® litigation over the product. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct-purchaser opt-out ® $ million at the time of the settlement and approximately $ billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan ® in September 2013 . Since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported classes of end-payers ® end-payers’ ® ® ® respectively. In January 2019, generic manufacturer Cipla Limited filed a lawsuit against Amgen, which was later amended to include Teva as a defendant, in Delaware federal court, alleging, among other things, that a January 2, 2019 settlement agreement between Amgen and Teva, resolving patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic Sensipar ® end-payer ® $1.4 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Sensipar ® On December 16, 2016, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a statement of objections (a provisional finding of breach of the Competition Act) in respect of certain allegations against Allergan, Actavis UK and certain Auden Mckenzie entities alleging competition law breaches in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. On March 3, 2017 and February 28, 2019, the CMA issued second and third statements of objections in respect of certain additional allegations relating to the same products and covering part of the same time periods as in the first statement of objections. On February 12, 2020, the CMA issued a Supplementary Statement of Objections effectively combining the three previously issued statements referenced above and a Statement of Draft Penalty Calculation was issued on October 28, 2020. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, in connection with which Teva will indemnify Accord Healthcare for potential fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court against Actavis UK in relation to the December 16, 2016 and March 3, 2017 statements of objections, and resulting from conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In addition, Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan against losses arising from this matter in the event of any such fines or damages. A liability for this matter has been recorded in the financial statements. In March 2021, following the 2019 European Commission’s inspection of Teva and subsequent request for information, the European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Teva may have abused a dominant position by delaying the market entry and uptake of medicines that compete with COPAXONE ® approximately $380 million. Between September 1, 2020 and December 20, 2020, separate plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers and opt-out ® ® ® approximately $700 million at the time of Watson’s 2013 settlement with Forest. Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing Teva is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing and promotion of its pharmaceutical products in the United States. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain Teva USA generic products and communications with competitors about such products. On August 25, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a three count indictment charging Teva USA with criminal felony Sherman Act violations. See No. 20-cr-200 E-Cream, In May 2018, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ Civil Division, pursuant to the federal False Claims Act, seeking documents and information produced since January 1, 2009 relevant to the Civil Division’s investigation concerning allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Teva, engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted in violation of the False Claims Act. An adverse resolution of this matter may include fines, penalties, financial forfeiture and compliance conditions. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. Subsequently, on December 15, 2016, a civil action was brought by the attorneys general of twenty states against Teva USA and several other companies asserting claims under federal antitrust law alleging price fixing of generic products in the United States. That complaint was later amended to add new states as named plaintiffs, as well as new allegations and new state law claims, and on June 18, 2018, the attorneys general of 49 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia filed a consolidated amended complaint against Actavis and Teva, as well as other companies and individuals. On May 10, 2019, most (though not all) of these attorneys general filed yet another antitrust complaint against Actavis, Teva and other companies and individuals, alleging price-fixing and market allocation with respect to additional generic products. On November 1, 2019, the state attorneys general filed an amended complaint, bringing the total number of plaintiff states and territories to 54. The amended complaint alleges that Teva was at the center of a conspiracy in the generic pharmaceutical industry, and asserts that Teva and others fixed prices, rigged bids, and allocated customers and market share with respect to certain additional products. On June 10, 2020, most, but not all, of the same states, with the addition of the U.S. Virgin Islands, filed a third complaint in the District of Connecticut naming, among other defendants, Actavis, but not Teva USA in a similar complaint relating to dermatological generics products. In the various complaints described above, the states seek a finding that the defendants’ actions violated federal antitrust law and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages on behalf of various state and governmental entities and consumers, civil penalties and costs. All such complaints have been transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania MDL”). On July 13, 2020, the court overseeing the Pennsylvania MDL chose the attorneys’ general November 1, 2019 amended complaint, referenced above, along with three complaints filed by private plaintiffs, to proceed first in the litigation as bellwether complaints. Teva moved the court to reconsider that ruling, and the motion was granted on February 9, 2021. As a result, the attorneys’ general November 1, 2019 amended complaint is not expected to be among the bellwether complaints in the Pennsylvania MDL. Beginning on March 2, 2016, and continuing through December 2020, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct and indirect purchaser opt-out In March 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva’s donations to patient assistance programs. Subsequently, in August 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and asserting causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and state law. It is alleged that Teva caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva’s donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients. An adverse judgment may involve damages, civil penalties and injunctive remedies. On October 19, 2020, Teva filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a claim, and that motion remains pending. Additionally, on January 8, 2021, Humana, Inc. filed an action against Teva in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida based on the allegations raised in the August 2020 complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston. On April 2, 2021 Teva filed a motion to dismiss the claims on the grounds that the claims are time-barred and/or insufficiently pled, and that action remains pending. Opioids Litigation Since May 2014, more than 3,000 complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of cities, counties, states, other governmental agencies, tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class actions of individuals) in both state and federal courts. Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (“MDL Opioid Proceeding”) and many of the cases filed in state court have been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Two cases that were included in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were recently transferred back to federal district court for additional discovery, pre-trial 14-cv-04361 18-cv-07591-CRB ® ® non-economic On April 19, 2021, a bench trial in California (The People of the State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County Counsel James R. Williams, et. al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) commenced with Teva and other defendants focused on the marketing of branded opioids. Absent resolutions, additional trials are expected to proceed in several states in 2021. In May 2019, Teva settled the Oklahoma litigation brought by the Oklahoma Attorney General (State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) for $85 million. The settlement did not include any admission of violation of law for any of the claims or allegations made. As the Company demonstrated a willingness to settle part of the litigation, for accounting purposes, management considered a portion of opioid-related cases as probable and, as such, recorded an estimated provision in the second quarter of 2019. Given the relatively early stage of the cases, management viewed no amount within the range to be the most likely outcome. Therefore, management recorded a provision for the reasonably estimable minimum amount in the assessed range for such opioid-related cases in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies.” On October 21, 2019, Teva reached a settlement with the two plaintiffs in the MDL Opioid Proceeding that was scheduled for trial for the Track One case, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties of Ohio. Under the terms of the settlement, Teva will provide the two counties with opioid treatment medication, buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets), known by the brand name Suboxone ® Also on October 21, 2019, Teva and certain other defendants reached an agreement in principle with a group of Attorneys General from North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas for a nationwide settlement. This nationwide settlement was designed to provide a mechanism by which the Company attempts to seek resolution of remaining potential and pending opioid claims by both the U.S. states and political subdivisions (i.e., counties, tribes and other plaintiffs) thereof. Under this nationwide settlement, Teva would provide buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets) with an estimated value of up to approximately period. During the passage of time since then, the Company has continued to negotiate the terms and conditions of a nationwide settlement. There are many complex financial and legal issues still outstanding, including indemnification claims by Allergan against the Company, arising from the acquisition of the Actavis Generics business. Since negotiations are ongoing, the Company cannot predict if a settlement will be finalized. The Company considered a range of potential settlement outcomes. The current provision remains a reasonable estimate of the ultimate costs if a settlement is finalized based on the Company’s most recent offer to settle. However, if not finalized for the entirety of the cases, a reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary Separately, on April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from the United States Attorney’s office in the Western District of Virginia and the Civil Division seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale of branded opioids. In August 2019, Teva received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York for documents related to the Company’s anti-diversion policies and procedures and distribution of its opioid medications, in what the Company understands to be part of a broader investigation into manufacturers’ and distributors’ monitoring programs and reporting under the Controlled Substances Act. In September 2019, Teva received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as part of an industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on New York health insurance premiums. Following a Statement of Charges and Notice of Hearing filed by the NYDFS, a hearing is currently scheduled to take place in June 2021. Currently, Teva cannot predict how a nationwide settlement (if finalized) will affect these investigations and administrative actions. In addition, a number of state attorneys general, including a coordinated multistate effort, have initiated investigations into sales and marketing practices of Teva and its affiliates with respect to opioids. Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of the multistate group. Teva is cooperating with these ongoing investigations and cannot predict their outcome at this time. In addition, several jurisdictions and consumers in Canada have initiated litigation regarding opioids alleging similar claims as those in the United States. The cases in Canada may be consolidated and are in their early stages. Shareholder Litigation On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors. Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation”). On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019. The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities and common laws in conn |
