| 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, o r 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 ® pre- two-to-one 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. Plaintiffs have moved to file amended complaints, which defendants have opposed. 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 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 €60.5 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 has provided the European Commission with a bank guarantee in the amount of the imposed fines. Teva and its affiliates have been named as defendants in lawsuits alleging that multiple patent litigation settlement agreements relating to AndroGel® 1% (testosterone gel) 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 the retailer plaintiffs in the Georgia AndroGel Litigation as well as the three direct purchasers that had sought class certification, 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. ® $ million at the time of the earlier Watson/Solvay settlement and approximately $ million at the time Actavis launched its generic version of AndroGel ® % in . A provision for these matters was included in the financial statements. 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 Lamictal®) entered into in February 2005. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December 2018, the district court granted the direct-purc h ® In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end payers for, Niaspan ® opt-out ® ® 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’ ® ® ® 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 ® ® On July 15, 2021, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a decision imposing fines for breaches of U.K. competition law by Allergan, Actavis UK and Auden Mckenzie and a number of other companies in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. The decision combines the CMA’s three prior investigations into the supply of hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. and encompasses those allegations which were subject to prior statements of objections (a provisional finding of breach of the Competition Act), in particular those under case 50277-1 50277-2 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. Annual sales of COPAXONE in the European Economic Area for the past calendar year were approximately Between September 1, 2020 and December 20, 2020, separate plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers and opt-out retailer purchasers of Bystolic® (nebivolol hydrochloride) filed separate complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against several generic manufacturers, including Teva, Actavis, and Watson, alleging, among other things, that the settlement agreements these generic manufacturers entered into with Forest Laboratories, Inc., the innovator, to resolve patent litigation over Bystolic® violated the antitrust laws. The cases were coordinated and on March 15, 2021, plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which Teva, Actavis, and Watson have moved to dismiss on the grounds (among others) that the allegations do not plausibly demonstrate any improper payment from Forest to Watson that could create antitrust liability. Those motions remain pending. Annual sales of Bystolic® in the United States were approximately Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing Teva is involved in government investigations and litigation aris i 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 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. The motion was granted on February 9, 2021 and on May 7, 2021, the Court chose the attorneys’ general third complaint (from June 10, 2020) to serve as a bellwether complaint in the Pennsylvania MDL. In June 2021, Teva settled with the State of Mississippi for 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 motion remains pending. In April 2021, a city and county in Washington sued Teva in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment concerning Teva’s sale of COPAXONE. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of health plans and a subclass of Washington-based health plans that purchased and/or reimbursed health plan members for COPAXONE. Plaintiffs allege that Teva engaged in several fraudulent schemes that resulted in plaintiffs and the putative class members purchasing and/or reimbursing plan members for additional prescriptions of COPAXONE and/or at inflated COPAXONE prices. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for the excess reimbursements and inflated costs, as well as injunctive relief. On July 2, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss the suit arguing that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations, plaintiffs cannot recover under the direct purchaser rule, and that plaintiffs failed to plausibly allege fraud or other elements of their claims. That motion remains pending. O e Opioids Litigation Since May 2014, more than 3,500 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. On June 29, 2021, a jury trial in New York ( In re Opioid Litigation 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.” Additionally, 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®, with a value million, which has been paid. 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 $23 billion at wholesale acquisition cost over a ten year period. In addition, Teva would also provide cash payments of up to $250 million over a ten year period. D u 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. This was followed by a Statement of Charges and Notice of Hearing filed by the NYDFS, although no hearing date is currently set. 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 connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering materials. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Between August 2017 and October 2020, twenty complaints were filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees, costs and expenses. The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have indicated that they intend to “opt-out” “opt-out” “opt-out” “opt-out” “opt-out” “opt-out” On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Teva and certain of its former officers alleging, among other things, violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and SEC Rule 10b-5. Motions to approve derivative actions against certain past and present directors and officers have been filed in Israeli Courts alleging negligence and recklessness with respect to the acquisition of the Rimsa business, the acquisition of Actavis Generics and the patent settlement relating to Lidoderm ® related to allegations in connection with the Lidoderm ® Environmental Matters Teva or its subsidiaries are party to a number of environmental proceedings, or have received claims, including under the federal Superfund law or other federal, provincial or state and local laws, imposing liability for alleged noncompliance, or for the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances and for natural resource damages. Many of these proceedings and claims seek to require the generators of hazardous wastes disposed of at a third party-owned site, or the party responsible for a release of hazardous substances that impacted a site, to investigate and clean the site or to pay or reimburse others for such activities, including for oversight by governmental authorities and any related damages to natural resources. Teva or its subsidiaries have received claims, or been made a party to these proceedings, along with others, as an alleged generator of wastes that were disposed of or treated at third-party waste disposal sites, or as a result of an alleged release from one of Teva’s facilities or former facilities. Although liability among the responsible parties, under certain circumstances, may be joint and several, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of clean-up clean-up clean-up Item 103 of Regulation S-K non-compliance Other Matters On February 1, 2018, former shareholders of Ception Therapeutics, Inc., a company that was acquired by and merged into Cephalon in 2010, prior to Cephalon’s acquisition by Teva, filed breach of contract and other related claims against the |
