LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 3 Months Ended |
Mar. 31, 2015 |
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract] | |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS |
From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, the Company also initiates actions or files counterclaims. The Company could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets. Certain of these proceedings and actions are described below. |
Unless otherwise indicated, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares to decline. |
Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries |
Legacy Biovail Matters |
On May 16, 2008, Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BPI”), the Company’s former subsidiary, entered into a written plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) for the District of Massachusetts whereby it agreed to plead guilty to violating the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and pay a fine of $22 million. |
In addition, on May 16, 2008, the Company entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAO whereby the USAO agreed to decline prosecution of Biovail Corporation (“Biovail”) in exchange for continuing cooperation and a civil settlement agreement and pay a civil penalty of $2 million. A hearing before the U.S. District Court in Boston took place on September 14, 2009 and the plea was approved. |
In addition, as part of the overall settlement, Biovail entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Health and Human Services on September 11, 2009. The CIA requires the Company to have a compliance program in place and to undertake a set of defined corporate integrity obligations for a five-year term. The CIA also includes requirements for an annual independent review of these obligations. Pursuant to the terms of the CIA, the Company expects the requirements contained in the CIA to terminate by the end of the second quarter of 2015. Failure to comply with the obligations under the CIA could result in financial penalties. |
Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission |
On May 2, 2012, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation ("Medicis") received a civil investigative demand from the FTC requiring that Medicis provide to the FTC information and documents relating to various settlement and other agreements with makers of generic SOLODYN® products following patent infringement claims and litigation, each of which was previously filed with the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and other efforts principally relating to SOLODYN®. On June 7, 2013, Medicis received an additional civil investigative demand relating to such settlements, agreements and efforts. Medicis is cooperating with this investigative process. If, at the conclusion of this process, the FTC believes that any of the agreements or efforts violates antitrust laws, it could challenge Medicis through a civil administrative or judicial proceeding. If the FTC ultimately challenges the agreements, we would expect to vigorously defend any such action. |
Subpoenas from the New York Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services |
On June 29, 2011, B&L received a subpoena from the New York Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding payments and communications between B&L and medical professionals related to its pharmaceutical products Lotemax® and Besivance®. The government has indicated that the subpoena was issued in connection with a civil investigation, and B&L is cooperating fully with the government’s investigation. B&L has heard of no additional activity at this time, and whether the government’s investigation is ongoing or will result in further requests for information is unknown. B&L and the Company will continue to work with the Office of Inspector General regarding the scope of the subpoena and any additional specific information that may be requested. |
ISTA Settlement with Department of Justice |
On or about May 24, 2013 (prior to the Company’s acquisition of B&L in August 2013), B&L’s subsidiary, ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“ISTA”), reached agreement with the U.S. government to resolve and conclude civil and criminal allegations against ISTA. The settlement involved conduct by ISTA that occurred between January 2006 and March 2011, prior to B&L’s acquisition of ISTA in June 2012. B&L was aware of the government investigation prior to its acquisition, and fully cooperated with the government to resolve the matter. In connection with the settlement, ISTA pled guilty to certain charges and paid approximately $34 million in civil and criminal fines, including interest and attorney’s fees. In addition, B&L agreed to maintain a specified compliance and ethics program and to annually certify compliance with this requirement to the Department of Justice for a period of three years. Failure to comply with the requirements of the settlement could result in fines. |
Securities |
Allergan Securities Litigation |
On August 1, 2014, Allergan Inc. ("Allergan") commenced the federal securities litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Valeant, Valeant’s subsidiary AGMS Inc. (“AGMS”), Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. ("Pershing Square"), PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC (“PS Fund 1”) and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-01214-DOC). The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections 13(d), 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman filed Counterclaims against Allergan and the members of the Allergan Board of Directors alleging violations of Sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied in part and granted in part a motion filed by plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction. The Court directed the defendants to make certain additional disclosures, and otherwise denied the motion. On January 28, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that all defendants violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and SEC rules under that section. The amended complaint also asserted violations of Sections 13(d) and Schedule 13D thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal of all claims. |
Allergan Shareholder Class Action |
On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). The complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants asserting violations of Sections 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder. The complaint also alleges violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. Defendants have not yet responded to the Complaint. The Company is reviewing these claims and intends to vigorously defend these matters. |
Salix Shareholder Class Actions |
Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement with Salix, six purported stockholder class actions were filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the “Salix Board”), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc. (“Sun Merger Sub”). On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption In re Salix Pharmaceuticals Shareholder Litigation (Court No. 10721-CB), and designated the complaint in one action to be the operative complaint. The operative complaint alleges generally that the members of the Salix Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Salix through an inadequate sale process and for inadequate consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protections. The complaint also alleges that the Form 14d-9 filed by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, injunctive relief, including enjoining the proposed transaction, and unspecified attorneys’ and other fees and costs. On April 1, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the action. Those motions remain pending. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. |
Antitrust |
Solodyn® Antitrust Class Actions |
On July 22, 2013, United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, filed a civil antitrust class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Case No. 2:13-CV-04235-JCJ, against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn®, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn®. The plaintiff further alleges that the defendants orchestrated a scheme to improperly restrain trade, and maintain, extend and abuse Medicis’ alleged monopoly power in the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets to the detriment of plaintiff and the putative class of end-payor purchasers it seeks to represent, causing them to pay overcharges. Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleges that defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys’ fees. Additional class action complaints making similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly-situated direct or end-payor purchasers of Solodyn® (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Case No. 2:13-CV-04270-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed July 23, 2013); Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4642-JCJ (E.D.Pa. filed Aug. 9, 2013); Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-4659-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 8, 2013); Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-5021-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 27, 2013); Heather Morgan, Case No. 2:13-CV-05097 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 29, 2013); Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 176 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 2:13-CV-05105 (E.D. Pa. filed Aug. 30, 2013); Ahold USA, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-12225 (D. Mass. filed Sept. 9, 2013); City of Providence, Rhode Island, Case No. 2:13-cv-01952 (D. Ariz. filed Sept. 24, 2013); International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:13-cv-12435 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 2, 2013); Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund et al., Case No. 1:13-cv-12517 (D. Mass. filed Oct. 7, 2013); Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, Case No. 13-cv-06266-JCJ (E.D. Pa. filed Oct. 25, 2013)). On August 29, 2013, International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund voluntarily dismissed the class action complaint it had originally filed on August 1, 2013, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed its class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No. 2:13-cv-05108). The International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund complaint makes similar allegations against all defendants, including Medicis and the Company, and seeks similar relief, to the other end-payor plaintiff complaints. On February 25, 2014, on a motion by Medicis and the Company, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) ordered that the cases pending outside the District of Massachusetts be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, with the consent of that court, for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions already pending in that district. The Multi-District Litigation (“MDL”), captioned In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, is now pending before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper. Two additional end-payor actions have been filed in the District of Massachusetts since the February 25th centralization order: Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-10786 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 14, 2014); and NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Case No. 1:14-cv-11015 (D. Mass. filed Mar. 19, 2014). These cases have been included in the pending MDL. On September 12, 2014, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action complaint. The Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, with the Defendants’ consent, subsequently filed a corrected amended complaint on September 22, 2014. On November 24, 2014, the Defendants jointly moved to dismiss the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ and the End Payor Plaintiffs’ complaints. Oral argument on the Defendants’ motion was held on March 12, 2015 and a decision is currently pending. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, two additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis in the Middle District of Pennsylvania by purported direct purchasers of Solodyn, making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that sought in the other direct purchaser plaintiff complaints (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp.. No. 1:15-cv-00611-YK (M.D. Pa. filed March 26, 2015); Rite Aid Corp., et al. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 1:15-cv-00673-YK (M.D. Pa. filed April 6, 2015)). On April 8, 2015, the JPML transferred the Walgreen complaint to the District of Massachusetts, where it is now included in the MDL. The Company intends to vigorously defend these actions. |
Intellectual Property |
AntiGrippin® Litigation |
Two suits have been brought against the Company’s subsidiary, Natur Produkt International, JSC ("Natur Produkt") seeking lost profits in connection with the registration by Natur Produkt of its AntiGrippin® trademark. The plaintiffs in these matters allege that Natur Produkt violated Russian competition law by preventing plaintiffs from producing and marketing their products under certain brand names. The first matter (Case No. A-56-23056/2013, Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg) was accepted for proceedings on June 24, 2013 and a hearing was held on November 28, 2013. In a decision dated December 4, 2013, the court found in favor of the plaintiff (AnviLab) and awarded the plaintiff lost profits in the amount of approximately RUR 1.66 billion (being approximately $50 million at the December 4, 2013 decision date). This charge was recognized in the fourth quarter of 2013 in Other (income) expense in the consolidated statements of income (loss). Natur Produkt appealed this decision, and a hearing in the appeal proceeding was held on March 16, 2014. The appeal court found in favor of Natur Produkt and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in full. Following this decision, the Company concluded that the potential loss was no longer probable, and therefore the reserve was reversed in the first quarter of 2014 in Other (income) expense in the consolidated statements of income (loss). Anvilab appealed the appeal court’s decision to the cassation court. On June 19, 2014, the cassation court resolved that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property (IP) court in this instance. The hearing before the IP court was held on July 30, 2014 and August 1, 2014. The IP court found in favor of the plaintiff and ruled to send the case for the second review to the court of the first instance, indicating that the court of the first instance should decide on the amount of damages suffered by Anvilab. Natur Produkt appealed the decision of the IP Court to the Supreme Court on September 15, 2014, but, on October 22, 2014, the Supreme Court denied that appeal and the matter was sent back to the court of first instance for the second review. The court of first instance appointed an expert to provide a report on the claimed lost profit amount, which was provided on or about March 10, 2015. Hearings before the court of first instance in this matter were held on March 12, 2015 and April 9, 2015. Following the April 9, 2015 hearing, the court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff lost profits in the amount of approximately RUR 1.66 billion (being approximately $31 million as of the April 9, 2015 decision date). Natur Produkt intends to appeal this decision, both as to the merits and the quantum of damages, to the appeal court. At this time, the Company cannot predict the outcome of this appeal. Accordingly, the Company has not recognized a reserve as of March 31, 2015. |
Natur Produkt was served with a claim in the second matter (Case No. A-56-38592/2013, Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg) on July 16, 2013 by the plaintiff in that matter (ZAO Tsentr Vnedreniya PROTEK (“Protek”)). A hearing was held in this matter on September 29, 2013 and, on October 18, 2013, the court found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek filed an appeal of the decision on November 26, 2013. A hearing in the appeal proceeding was held on January 30, 2014 and the appeal court also found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek appealed that decision to the cassation court (Case No. A-56-38592/2013) and, on July 7, 2014, the cassation court also found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek did not exercise its right to appeal the cassation court decision to the Supreme Court. |
Patent Litigation/Paragraph IV Matters |
The Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain patent infringement proceedings in the United States, including as arising from claims filed by the Company in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification received from third parties respecting their pending ANDA applications for generic versions of certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, including Prolensa®, Apriso® and Uceris®, or other similar suits. These matters are proceeding in the ordinary course. |
General Civil Actions |
Afexa Class Action |
On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX® to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the Plaintiff’s claim for failure to state a cause of action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff’s amended claim was held on February 4, 2015 and a decision is pending. A date for the certification hearing has been tentatively scheduled for June 22, 2015. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. |
Product Liability Matters |
MoistureLoc™ Product Liability Lawsuits |
Currently, B&L has been served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 321 currently active product liability lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State Consolidated Proceeding described below, as well as in certain other U.S. state courts, on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™. Two consolidated cases were established to handle MoistureLoc™ claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second, on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State, and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding. On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation testimony with regard to non-fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from testifying that MoistureLoc™ caused non-fusarium infections. On September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling. On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial court’s ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims. On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to renew, and granted B&L’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was argued January 20, 2015. The Court issued its decision on February 10, 2015, denying plaintiffs’ appeal to renew and affirming the lower court’s decision granting B&L’s motion for summary judgment regarding all remaining non-fusarium claims. On March 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to appeal this decision and B&L filed its opposition on March 26, 2015. A decision is expected on the motion for leave to appeal by the end of May 2015. |
All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™. |
Currently, B&L has settled approximately 630 cases in connection with MoistureLoc™ product liability suits. All U.S.-based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there are two active fusarium claims involving claimants outside of the United States that remain pending. The parties in these active matters are involved in settlement discussions. |
Salix Legal Proceedings |
The following legal or other proceedings involving Salix had been commenced and were ongoing prior to the Salix Acquisition: |
DOJ Subpoena |
On February 1, 2013, Salix received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting documents regarding sales and promotional practices for its Xifaxan®, Relistor® and Apriso® products. Salix and the Company are continuing to respond to the subpoena and intend to cooperate fully with the subpoena and related government investigation. |
Salix SEC Investigation |
The SEC is conducting an investigation into possible securities law violations by Salix relating to disclosures by Salix of inventory amounts in the distribution channel and related issues in press releases, on analyst calls and in Salix’s various SEC filings, as well as related accounting issues. Salix and the Company are cooperating with the SEC in its investigation, including through the provisions of documents to the SEC Enforcement Staff. We cannot predict the outcome or the duration of the SEC investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on Salix or the Company arising out of the SEC investigation. |
Salix Securities Litigation |
Beginning on November 7, 2014, three putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with Salix’s disclosures regarding certain products, including with respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal controls. Two of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and are captioned: Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)). These two actions have been consolidated and an initial schedule has been set. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter. A third action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D), but was subsequently voluntarily dismissed. |