COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES As of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had $2.4 million and $6.0 million, respectively, of non-cancelable purchase orders related to consulting services. Legal Matters Company v. NUCYNTA and NUCYNTA ER ANDA Filers Actavis & Alkem: In July 2013, Janssen Pharma filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the District Court) against Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Inc. and Actavis LLC (collectively, Actavis), as well as Alkem Laboratories Limited and Ascend Laboratories, LLC (collectively, Alkem). The patent infringement claims against Actavis and Alkem relate to their respective ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of NUCYNTA^® and NUCYNTA^® ER before the expiration of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 39,593 (the ’593 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,994,364 (the ’364 Patent) and, as to Actavis only, U.S. Patent No. 8,309,060 (the ’60 Patent). In December 2013, Janssen Pharma filed an additional complaint in the District Court against Alkem asserting that newly issued U.S. Patent No. 8,536,130 (the ’130 Patent) was also infringed by Alkem’s ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of NUCYNTA ER. In August 2014, Janssen Pharma amended the complaint against Alkem to add additional dosage strengths. Sandoz & Roxane: In October 2013, Janssen Pharma received a Paragraph IV Notice from Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz) with respect to NUCYNTA related to the ’364 Patent, and a Paragraph IV Notice from Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) with respect to NUCYNTA related to the ’364 and ’593 Patents. In response to those notices, Janssen Pharma filed an additional complaint in the District Court against Roxane and Sandoz asserting the ’364 Patent against Sandoz and the ’364 and ’593 Patents against Roxane. In April 2014, Janssen Pharma and Sandoz entered into a joint stipulation of dismissal of the case against Sandoz, based on Sandoz’s agreement not to market a generic version of NUCYNTA products prior to the expiration of the asserted patents. In June 2014, in response to a new Paragraph IV Notice from Roxane with respect to NUCYNTA ER, Janssen Pharma filed an additional complaint in the District Court asserting the ’364, ’593, and ’130 Patents against Roxane. Watson: In July 2014, in response to a Paragraph IV Notice from Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson) with respect to the NUCYNTA oral solution product and the ’364 and ’593 Patents, Janssen Pharma filed a lawsuit in the District Court asserting the ’364 and ’593 Patents against Watson. In each of the foregoing actions, the ANDA filers counterclaimed for declaratory relief of non-infringement and patent invalidity. At the time that the actions were commenced, Janssen Pharma was the exclusive U.S. licensee of the patents referred to above. On April 2, 2015, the Company acquired the U.S. rights to NUCYNTA ER and NUCYNTA from Janssen Pharma. As part of the acquisition, the Company became the exclusive U.S. licensee of the patents referred to above. The Company was added as a plaintiff to the pending cases and is actively litigating them. In September 2015, the Company filed an additional complaint in the District Court asserting the ’130 Patent against Actavis. The ’130 Patent issued in September 2013 and was timely listed in the Orange Book for NUCYNTA ER, but Actavis did not file a Paragraph IV Notice with respect to this patent. In its new lawsuit, the Company claimed that Actavis would infringe or induce infringement of the ’130 Patent if its proposed generic products were approved. In response, Actavis counterclaimed for declaratory relief of non-infringement and patent invalidity, as well as an order requiring the Company to change the corrected use code listed in the Orange Book for the ’130 Patent. In February 2016, Actavis, Roxane and Alkem each stipulated to infringement of the ’593 and ’364 patents. On March 9, 2016, a two-week bench trial on the validity of the three asserted patents and infringement of the ’130 patent commenced. Closing arguments took place on April 27, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the District Court issued its final decision. The District Court found that the ’593 Patent, ’364 Patent, and ’130 Patent are all valid and enforceable, that Alkem will induce infringement of the ’130 Patent, but that Roxane and Actavis will not infringe the ’130 Patent. On April 11, 2017, the District Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company on the validity and enforceability of all three patents, on infringement of the ’593 and ’364 Patents by all defendants, and on infringement of the ’130 Patent against Alkem. The judgment includes an injunction enjoining all three defendants from engaging in certain activities with regard to tapentadol (the active ingredient in NUCYNTA), and ordering the effective date of any approval of Actavis and Roxane’s ANDAs, and Alkem’s ANDA for NUCYNTA IR to be no earlier than the expiry of the ’364 Patent (June 27, 2025), and the effective date of any approval of Alkem’s ANDA for NUCYNTA ER to be no earlier than the expiry of the ’130 Patent (September 22, 2028). The period of exclusivity with respect to all four defendants may in the future be extended with the award of pediatric exclusivity. Notices of appeal were filed by defendants Alkem and Roxane concerning the validity of the ’364 and ’130 patents. The Company filed its own cross-appeal with regard to the District Court’s finding that Roxane and Actavis will not infringe the claims of the ’130 Patent. The appeals were consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit). Briefing concluded in March 2018 and oral arguments occurred on September 4, 2018. In March 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision in all respects. On April 29, 2019, Alkem filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Federal Circuit, which was denied on May 31, 2019. The period during which Aklem could have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari has passed. As a result, the District Court’s decision is final and non-appealable as to the proposed labels of the defendants. On December 13, 2019, Alkem filed a motion in the District Court, seeking to modify the final judgment and injunction based on a purported change to Alkem’s proposed label for its generic version of NUCYNTA ER, which change would make the label similar to those of Actavis and Roxane. Alkem allegedly made this change in June 2019, and argues that it no longer infringes the asserted ’130 Patent claims based on this change. Accordingly, Alkem is seeking to modify the final judgment and injunction to allow the effective date for approval of its ANDA to occur upon the expiry of the ’364 Patent (June 27, 2025). Assertio filed an opposition to Alkem’s motion on January 21, 2020. Assertio argues, for instance, that Alkem is not entitled to such extraordinary relief because this allegedly new circumstance brought about by Alkem was wholly foreseeable and within Alkem’s control throughout the several years of litigation, including before entry of the final judgment and injunction. Briefing was completed in February 2020. Resolution of the motion is expected later this year. Effective as of February 13, 2020, we divested our rights, title and interest in and to this litigation to Collegium. Company v. Purdue The Company sued Purdue Pharma L.P (Purdue) for patent infringement in a lawsuit filed in January 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit arose from Purdue’s commercialization of reformulated OxyContin^® (oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release) in the U.S. and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,475 (the ’475 Patent) and 6,635,280 (the ’280 Patent), which expired in September 2016. On September 28, 2015, the Court stayed the Purdue lawsuit pending the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Purdue’s appeal of the Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) described below. On June 30, 2016, the district court lifted the stay based on the CAFC’s opinion and judgment affirming the PTAB’s Final Written Decisions confirming the patentability of the patent claims of the ’475 and ’280 Patents Purdue had challenged. On June 10, 2016, the Company filed a motion for leave to file a second amended Complaint to plead willful infringement. On June 21, 2016, Purdue filed an opposition to the Company’s motion for leave to plead willful infringement. On January 31, 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion for leave to plead willful infringement. On February 1, 2017, the Company filed a Second Amended Complaint pleading willful infringement. On July 10, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Wolfson. On February 15, 2017, Purdue answered the Company’s Second Amended Complaint and pled counterclaims of non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability and certain affirmative defenses. On September 26, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Martinotti. On December 22, 2017, the Court set the close of expert discovery for March 30, 2018. On January 5, 2018, the Court vacated the January 25, 2018 pretrial conference. On July 9, 2018, the Court issued an order administratively terminating the case pending the outcome of settlement discussions between the parties. On August 28, 2018, the Company and each of Purdue, The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, and Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (collectively, Purdue Companies), entered into a Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement: (i) Purdue Companies paid the Company $30 million on August 28, 2018 and paid the Company an additional $32.0 million on January 30, 2019; (ii) each party covenanted not to the sue the other with regard to any alleged infringement of such party’s patents or patent rights as a result of the commercialization of the other party’s current product portfolio; (iii) each party covenanted not to challenge the other party’s patents or patent rights covering such other party’s current product portfolio; and (iv) each party agreed to a mutual release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating to the other party’s current product portfolio. Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions have been filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to the drug Glumetza^®. The named class representatives in these actions include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City of Providence, KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, and MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC. The class representatives seek to represent (i) a putative class of direct purchasers of Glumetza, and (ii) a putative class of end payers for Glumetza. In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc., have filed substantially similar direct antitrust claims based on alleged assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers. These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License Agreement (the Settlement) that the Company, Santarus, Inc. (Santarus) and Lupin Limited (Lupin) entered into in February 2012 that resolved patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it allegedly included a “reverse payment” that caused Lupin to delay its entry in the market with a generic version of Glumetza. The alleged “reverse payment” is an alleged commitment on the part of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza for a certain period. The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the Company and its co-defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus) are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version of Glumetza® due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits are in the earliest stages of proceedings, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. Securities Class Action Lawsuit and Related Matters On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive officer and president, its former chief executive officer and president, and its former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the District Court). The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational policies and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August 6, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019. The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 17, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on August 1, 2019. The Company and the individuals filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on August 30, 2019. The District Court held oral argument on December 18, 2019. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously. In addition, five shareholder derivative actions were filed on behalf of the Company against its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise out of the same factual allegations as the class action. The first derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on September 29, 2017 (Singh v. Higgins et al., RG17877280). The second and third actions were filed in the Northern District of California on November 10, 2017 (Solak v. Higgins et al., No. 3:17-cv-6546-JST) and November 15, 2017 (Ross v. Fogarty et al., No. 3:17-cv-6592- JST). The fourth action was filed in the District of Delaware on December 21, 2018 (Lutz v. Higgins et al, No. 18-2044-CFC). The fifth derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on January 28, 2019 (Youse v. Higgins et al, No. HG19004409). On December 7, 2017, the plaintiffs in Solak v. Higgins, et al. voluntarily dismissed the first federal derivative action. The Ross, Singh, and Lutz actions were stayed on January 18, 2018, January 23, 2018, and January 11, 2019, respectively, pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On May 28, 2019, during a brief lift of the stay in the Singh and Youse actions while the parties’ motion to consolidate was pending, after having been ordered to respond to the Singh and Youse complaints, the Company did so by filing demurrers. On July 12, 2019, the Singh and Youse actions were consolidated, and the consolidated matter was stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the federal class action. The plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file an amended consolidated complaint. The Company believes that these actions are without merit and intends to contest them vigorously. Opioid-Related Request and Subpoenas As a result of the greater public awareness of the public health issue of opioid abuse, there has been increased scrutiny of, and investigation into, the commercial practices of opioid manufacturers generally by federal, state, and local regulatory and governmental agencies. In March 2017, the Company received a letter from then-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the then-Ranking Member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, requesting certain information from the Company regarding its historical commercialization of opioid products. The Company voluntarily furnished information responsive to Sen. McCaskill’s request. Since 2017, the Company has received and responded to subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking documents and information regarding its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. The Company has also received and responded to subpoenas or civil investigative demands focused on its historical promotion and sales of Lazanda, NUCYNTA, and NUCYNTA ER from various state attorneys general seeking documents and information regarding the Company’s historical sales and marketing of opioid products. In addition, the Company received and responded to a subpoena from the State of California Department of Insurance (CDI) seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of Lazanda. The CDI subpoena also seeks information on Gralise, a non-opioid product formerly in the Company’s portfolio. Most recently, the Company received a subpoena from the New York Department of Financial Services seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. The Company also from time to time receives and complies with subpoenas from governmental authorities related to investigations primarily focused on third parties, including healthcare practitioners. The Company is cooperating with the foregoing governmental investigations and inquiries. Multidistrict Opioid Litigation A number of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and other industry participants have been named in numerous lawsuits around the country brought by various groups of plaintiffs, including city and county governments, hospitals and others. In general, the lawsuits assert claims arising from defendants’ manufacturing, distributing, marketing and promoting of FDA-approved opioid drugs. The specific legal theories asserted vary from case to case, but most of the lawsuits include federal and state statutory claims as well as claims arising under state common law. Plaintiffs seek various forms of damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. For such cases filed in or removed to federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order in December 2017, establishing a Multi-District Litigation court (MDL Court) in the Northern District of Ohio (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 1:17-MD-2804). Since that time, more than 2,000 such cases that were originally filed in U.S. District Courts, or removed to federal court from state court, have been transferred to the MDL Court. The Company is currently involved in a subset of the lawsuits that have been transferred to the MDL Court. The Company is also involved in other federal lawsuits that have not yet been transferred to the MDL Court pending a determination of whether those lawsuits should proceed in state or other originating court. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. Plaintiffs in the pending federal cases involving the Company include individuals, county and municipal governmental entities, employee benefit plans, health clinics and health insurance providers who assert federal and state statutory claims and state common law claims, such as conspiracy, nuisance, fraud, negligence, gross negligence, deceptive trade practices, and products liability claims (defective design/failure to warn). In these cases, plaintiffs seek a variety of forms of relief, including actual damages to compensate for alleged personal injuries and for alleged past and future costs such as to provide care and services to persons with opioid-related addiction or related conditions, injunctive relief, including to prohibit alleged deceptive marketing practices and abate an alleged nuisance, establishment of a compensation fund, disgorgement of profits, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits are in the earliest stages of proceedings, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. State Opioid Litigation Related to the cases in the MDL Court noted above, there have been hundreds of similar lawsuits filed in state courts around the country, in which various groups of plaintiffs assert opioid-drug related claims against similar groups of defendants. The Company is currently named in a subset of those cases, including cases in Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. In the pending cases involving the Company, plaintiffs are asserting state common law and statutory claims against the defendants similar in nature to the claims asserted in the MDL cases. Plaintiffs are seeking past and future damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits are likewise in their earliest stages, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. Insurance Litigation On January 15, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action filed by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (Navigators) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-255). Navigators is the Company’s primary product liability insurer. Navigators is seeking declaratory judgment that opioid litigation claims noticed by the Company (as further described above under “Multidistrict Opioid Litigation” and “State Opioid Litigation”) are not covered by the Company’s life sciences liability policies with Navigators. The Company filed a counterclaim on February 28, 2019. Navigators filed an answer on April 11, 2019. This litigation is ongoing. The parties expect to file summary judgment briefing relating to Navigators’ duty to defend the opioid litigation in the second quarter of 2020, and to receive a ruling by the end of 2020. General The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the legal proceedings described above, nor can the Company estimate the amount of loss, range of loss or other adverse consequence, if any, that may result from these proceedings or the amount of any gain in the event the Company prevails in litigation involving a claim for damages. As such the Company is not currently able to estimate the impact of the above litigation on its financial position or results of operations. The Company may from time to time become party to actions, claims, suits, investigations or proceedings arising from the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims and other matters. The Company may also become party to further litigation in federal and state courts relating to opioid drugs. Although actions, claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the matters set forth above, the Company is not currently involved in any matters that the Company believes may have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. However, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of associated cost and diversion of management time.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

As of December 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018, the Company had $2.4 million and $6.0 million, respectively, of non-cancelable purchase orders related to consulting services.

Legal Matters

Company v. NUCYNTA and NUCYNTA ER ANDA Filers

Actavis & Alkem: In July 2013, Janssen Pharma filed patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the District Court) against Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Actavis Inc. and Actavis LLC (collectively, Actavis), as well as Alkem Laboratories Limited and Ascend Laboratories, LLC (collectively, Alkem). The patent infringement claims against Actavis and Alkem relate to their respective ANDAs seeking approval to market generic versions of NUCYNTA^® and NUCYNTA^® ER before the expiration of U.S. Reissue Patent No. 39,593 (the ’593 Patent), U.S. Patent No. 7,994,364 (the ’364 Patent) and, as to Actavis only, U.S. Patent No. 8,309,060 (the ’60 Patent). In December 2013, Janssen Pharma filed an additional complaint in the District Court against Alkem asserting that newly issued U.S. Patent No. 8,536,130 (the ’130 Patent) was also infringed by Alkem’s ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of NUCYNTA ER. In August 2014, Janssen Pharma amended the complaint against Alkem to add additional dosage strengths.

Sandoz & Roxane: In October 2013, Janssen Pharma received a Paragraph IV Notice from Sandoz, Inc. (Sandoz) with respect to NUCYNTA related to the ’364 Patent, and a Paragraph IV Notice from Roxane Laboratories, Inc. (Roxane) with respect to NUCYNTA related to the ’364 and ’593 Patents. In response to those notices, Janssen Pharma filed an additional complaint in the District Court against Roxane and Sandoz asserting the ’364 Patent against Sandoz and the ’364 and ’593 Patents against Roxane. In April 2014, Janssen Pharma and Sandoz entered into a joint stipulation of dismissal of the case against Sandoz, based on Sandoz’s agreement not to market a generic version of NUCYNTA products prior to the expiration of the asserted patents. In June 2014, in response to a new Paragraph IV Notice from Roxane with respect to NUCYNTA ER, Janssen Pharma filed an additional complaint in the District Court asserting the ’364, ’593, and ’130 Patents against Roxane.

Watson: In July 2014, in response to a Paragraph IV Notice from Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson) with respect to the NUCYNTA oral solution product and the ’364 and ’593 Patents, Janssen Pharma filed a lawsuit in the District Court asserting the ’364 and ’593 Patents against Watson.

In each of the foregoing actions, the ANDA filers counterclaimed for declaratory relief of non-infringement and patent invalidity. At the time that the actions were commenced, Janssen Pharma was the exclusive U.S. licensee of the patents referred to above. On April 2, 2015, the Company acquired the U.S. rights to NUCYNTA ER and NUCYNTA from Janssen Pharma. As part of the acquisition, the Company became the exclusive U.S. licensee of the patents referred to above. The Company was added as a plaintiff to the pending cases and is actively litigating them.

In September 2015, the Company filed an additional complaint in the District Court asserting the ’130 Patent against Actavis. The ’130 Patent issued in September 2013 and was timely listed in the Orange Book for NUCYNTA ER, but Actavis did not file a Paragraph IV Notice with respect to this patent. In its new lawsuit, the Company claimed that Actavis would infringe or induce infringement of the ’130 Patent if its proposed generic products were approved. In response, Actavis counterclaimed for declaratory relief of non-infringement and patent invalidity, as well as an order requiring the Company to change the corrected use code listed in the Orange Book for the ’130 Patent.

In February 2016, Actavis, Roxane and Alkem each stipulated to infringement of the ’593 and ’364 patents. On March 9, 2016, a two-week bench trial on the validity of the three asserted patents and infringement of the ’130 patent commenced. Closing arguments took place on April 27, 2016. On September 30, 2016, the District Court issued its final decision. The District Court found that the ’593 Patent, ’364 Patent, and ’130 Patent are all valid and enforceable, that Alkem will induce infringement of the ’130 Patent, but that Roxane and Actavis will not infringe the ’130 Patent.

On April 11, 2017, the District Court entered final judgment in favor of the Company on the validity and enforceability of all three patents, on infringement of the ’593 and ’364 Patents by all defendants, and on infringement of the ’130 Patent against Alkem. The judgment includes an injunction enjoining all three defendants from engaging in certain activities with regard to tapentadol (the active ingredient in NUCYNTA), and ordering the effective date of any approval of Actavis and Roxane’s ANDAs, and Alkem’s ANDA for NUCYNTA IR to be no earlier than the expiry of the ’364 Patent (June 27, 2025), and the effective date of any approval of Alkem’s ANDA for NUCYNTA ER to be no earlier than the expiry of the ’130 Patent (September 22, 2028). The period of exclusivity with respect to all four defendants may in the future be extended with the award of pediatric exclusivity.

Notices of appeal were filed by defendants Alkem and Roxane concerning the validity of the ’364 and ’130 patents. The Company filed its own cross-appeal with regard to the District Court’s finding that Roxane and Actavis will not infringe the claims of the ’130 Patent. The appeals were consolidated at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Federal Circuit). Briefing concluded in March 2018 and oral arguments occurred on September 4, 2018. In March 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the decision in all respects. On April 29, 2019, Alkem filed a petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Federal Circuit, which was denied on May 31, 2019. The period during which Aklem could have petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for writ of certiorari has passed. As a result, the District Court’s decision is final and non-appealable as to the proposed labels of the defendants.

On December 13, 2019, Alkem filed a motion in the District Court, seeking to modify the final judgment and injunction based on a purported change to Alkem’s proposed label for its generic version of NUCYNTA ER, which change would make the label similar to those of Actavis and Roxane. Alkem allegedly made this change in June 2019, and argues that it no longer infringes the asserted ’130 Patent claims based on this change. Accordingly, Alkem is seeking to modify the final judgment and injunction to allow the effective date for approval of its ANDA to occur upon the expiry of the ’364 Patent (June 27, 2025). Assertio filed an opposition to Alkem’s motion on January 21, 2020. Assertio argues, for instance, that Alkem is not entitled to such extraordinary relief because this allegedly new circumstance brought about by Alkem was wholly foreseeable and within Alkem’s control throughout the several years of litigation, including before entry of the final judgment and injunction. Briefing was completed in February 2020. Resolution of the motion is expected later this year.

Effective as of February 13, 2020, we divested our rights, title and interest in and to this litigation to Collegium.

Company v. Purdue

The Company sued Purdue Pharma L.P (Purdue) for patent infringement in a lawsuit filed in January 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit arose from Purdue’s commercialization of reformulated OxyContin^® (oxycodone hydrochloride controlled-release) in the U.S. and alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,340,475 (the ’475 Patent) and 6,635,280 (the ’280 Patent), which expired in September 2016.

On September 28, 2015, the Court stayed the Purdue lawsuit pending the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in Purdue’s appeal of the Final Written Decisions of the Patent Trial Appeal Board (PTAB) described below. On June 30, 2016, the district court lifted the stay based on the CAFC’s opinion and judgment affirming the PTAB’s Final Written Decisions confirming the patentability of the patent claims of the ’475 and ’280 Patents Purdue had challenged. On June 10, 2016, the Company filed a motion for leave to file a second amended Complaint to plead willful infringement. On June 21, 2016, Purdue filed an opposition to the Company’s motion for leave to plead willful infringement. On January 31, 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion for leave to plead willful infringement.

On February 1, 2017, the Company filed a Second Amended Complaint pleading willful infringement. On July 10, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Wolfson. On February 15, 2017, Purdue answered the Company’s Second Amended Complaint and pled counterclaims of non-infringement, invalidity, unenforceability and certain affirmative defenses. On September 26, 2017, the case was reassigned to Judge Martinotti. On December 22, 2017, the Court set the close of expert discovery for March 30, 2018. On January 5, 2018, the Court vacated the January 25, 2018 pretrial conference.

On July 9, 2018, the Court issued an order administratively terminating the case pending the outcome of settlement discussions between the parties. On August 28, 2018, the Company and each of Purdue, The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., a New Jersey corporation, and Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (collectively, Purdue Companies), entered into a Settlement Agreement. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement: (i) Purdue Companies paid the Company $30 million on August 28, 2018 and paid the Company an additional $32.0 million on January 30, 2019; (ii) each party covenanted not to the sue the other with regard to any alleged infringement of such party’s patents or patent rights as a result of the commercialization of the other party’s current product portfolio; (iii) each party covenanted not to challenge the other party’s patents or patent rights covering such other party’s current product portfolio; and (iv) each party agreed to a mutual release of claims relating to any claim or potential claim relating to the other party’s current product portfolio.

Glumetza Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions have been filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to the drug Glumetza^®. The named class representatives in these actions include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City of Providence, KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, and MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC. The class representatives seek to represent (i) a putative class of direct purchasers of Glumetza, and (ii) a putative class of end payers for Glumetza. In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc., have filed substantially similar direct antitrust claims based on alleged assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers.

These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License Agreement (the Settlement) that the Company, Santarus, Inc. (Santarus) and Lupin Limited (Lupin) entered into in February 2012 that resolved patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it allegedly included a “reverse payment” that caused Lupin to delay its entry in the market with a generic version of Glumetza. The alleged “reverse payment” is an alleged commitment on the part of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza for a certain period. The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the Company and its co-defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus) are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version of Glumetza® due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys’ fees and costs.

These lawsuits are in the earliest stages of proceedings, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

Securities Class Action Lawsuit and Related Matters

On August 23, 2017, the Company, its current chief executive officer and president, its former chief executive officer and president, and its former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the District Court). The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational policies and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August 6, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019. The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 17, 2019. The lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion on August 1, 2019. The Company and the individuals filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss on August 30, 2019. The District Court held oral argument on December 18, 2019. The Company believes that the action is without merit and intends to contest it vigorously.

In addition, five shareholder derivative actions were filed on behalf of the Company against its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise out of the same factual allegations as the class action. The first derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on September 29, 2017 (Singh v. Higgins et al., RG17877280). The second and third actions were filed in the Northern District of California on November 10, 2017 (Solak v. Higgins et al., No. 3:17-cv-6546-JST) and November 15, 2017 (Ross v. Fogarty et al., No. 3:17-cv-6592- JST). The fourth action was filed in the District of Delaware on December 21, 2018 (Lutz v. Higgins et al, No. 18-2044-CFC). The fifth derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on January 28, 2019 (Youse v. Higgins et al, No. HG19004409). On December 7, 2017, the plaintiffs in Solak v. Higgins, et al. voluntarily dismissed the first federal derivative action. The Ross, Singh, and Lutz actions were stayed on January 18, 2018, January 23, 2018, and January 11, 2019, respectively, pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the securities class action. On May 28, 2019, during a brief lift of the stay in the Singh and Youse actions while the parties’ motion to consolidate was pending, after having been ordered to respond to the Singh and Youse complaints, the Company did so by filing demurrers. On July 12, 2019, the Singh and Youse actions were consolidated, and the consolidated matter was stayed pending the resolution of the motion to dismiss in the federal class action. The plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file an amended consolidated complaint. The Company believes that these actions are without merit and intends to contest them vigorously.

Opioid-Related Request and Subpoenas

As a result of the greater public awareness of the public health issue of opioid abuse, there has been increased scrutiny of, and investigation into, the commercial practices of opioid manufacturers generally by federal, state, and local regulatory and governmental agencies. In March 2017, the Company received a letter from then-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the then-Ranking Member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, requesting certain information from the Company regarding its historical commercialization of opioid products. The Company voluntarily furnished information responsive to Sen. McCaskill’s request. Since 2017, the Company has received and responded to subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking documents and information regarding its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. The Company has also received and responded to subpoenas or civil investigative demands focused on its historical promotion and sales of Lazanda, NUCYNTA, and NUCYNTA ER from various state attorneys general seeking documents and information regarding the Company’s historical sales and marketing of opioid products. In addition, the Company received and responded to a subpoena from the State of California Department of Insurance (CDI) seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of Lazanda. The CDI subpoena also seeks information on Gralise, a non-opioid product formerly in the Company’s portfolio. Most recently, the Company received a subpoena from the New York Department of Financial Services seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. The Company also from time to time receives and complies with subpoenas from governmental authorities related to investigations primarily focused on third parties, including healthcare practitioners. The Company is cooperating with the foregoing governmental investigations and inquiries.

Multidistrict Opioid Litigation

A number of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and other industry participants have been named in numerous lawsuits around the country brought by various groups of plaintiffs, including city and county governments, hospitals and others. In general, the lawsuits assert claims arising from defendants’ manufacturing, distributing, marketing and promoting of FDA-approved opioid drugs. The specific legal theories asserted vary from case to case, but most of the lawsuits include federal and state statutory claims as well as claims arising under state common law. Plaintiffs seek various forms of damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.

For such cases filed in or removed to federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order in December 2017, establishing a Multi-District Litigation court (MDL Court) in the Northern District of Ohio (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 1:17-MD-2804). Since that time, more than 2,000 such cases that were originally filed in U.S. District Courts, or removed to federal court from state court, have been transferred to the MDL Court. The Company is currently involved in a subset of the lawsuits that have been transferred to the MDL Court. The Company is also involved in other federal lawsuits that have not yet been transferred to the MDL Court pending a determination of whether those lawsuits should proceed in state or other originating court. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. Plaintiffs in the pending federal cases involving the Company include individuals, county and municipal governmental entities, employee benefit plans, health clinics and health insurance providers who assert federal and state statutory claims and state common law claims, such as conspiracy, nuisance, fraud, negligence, gross negligence, deceptive trade practices, and products liability claims (defective design/failure to warn). In these cases, plaintiffs seek a variety of forms of relief, including actual damages to compensate for alleged personal injuries and for alleged past and future costs such as to provide care and services to persons with opioid-related addiction or related conditions, injunctive relief, including to prohibit alleged deceptive marketing practices and abate an alleged nuisance, establishment of a compensation fund, disgorgement of profits, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits are in the earliest stages of proceedings, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

State Opioid Litigation

Related to the cases in the MDL Court noted above, there have been hundreds of similar lawsuits filed in state courts around the country, in which various groups of plaintiffs assert opioid-drug related claims against similar groups of defendants. The Company is currently named in a subset of those cases, including cases in Alabama, Florida, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. In the pending cases involving the Company, plaintiffs are asserting state common law and statutory claims against the defendants similar in nature to the claims asserted in the MDL cases. Plaintiffs are seeking past and future damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. These lawsuits are likewise in their earliest stages, and the Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

Insurance Litigation

On January 15, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action filed by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (Navigators) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-255). Navigators is the Company’s primary product liability insurer. Navigators is seeking declaratory judgment that opioid litigation claims noticed by the Company (as further described above under “Multidistrict Opioid Litigation” and “State Opioid Litigation”) are not covered by the Company’s life sciences liability policies with Navigators. The Company filed a counterclaim on February 28, 2019. Navigators filed an answer on April 11, 2019. This litigation is ongoing. The parties expect to file summary judgment briefing relating to Navigators’ duty to defend the opioid litigation in the second quarter of 2020, and to receive a ruling by the end of 2020.

General

The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the legal proceedings described above, nor can the Company estimate the amount of loss, range of loss or other adverse consequence, if any, that may result from these proceedings or the amount of any gain in the event the Company prevails in litigation involving a claim for damages. As such the Company is not currently able to estimate the impact of the above litigation on its financial position or results of operations.

The Company may from time to time become party to actions, claims, suits, investigations or proceedings arising from the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims and other matters. The Company may also become party to further litigation in federal and state courts relating to opioid drugs. Although actions, claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the matters set forth above, the Company is not currently involved in any matters that the Company believes may have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. However, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of associated cost and diversion of management time.