11. Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
11. Commitments and Contingencies	Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings Pernix Ireland Pain Limited (n/k/a Pernix Ireland Pain Designated Activity Company) and Pernix Therapeutics, LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (Actavis), District of Delaware Case No. 16-138; Pernix Ireland Pain Limited. and Pernix Therapeutics, LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations, Ltd. (Alvogen), District of Delaware Case No. 16-139. PIP DAC is the owner of (a) U.S. Patent No. 9,265,760 (the '760 Patent), issued on February 23, 2016, (b) U.S. Patent No. 9,326,982 (the '982 Patent), issued on May 3, 2016, (c) U.S. Patent No. 9,333,201 (the '201 Patent), issued on May 10, 2016, and (d) U.S. Patent No. 9,339,499 (the '499 Patent), issued on May 17, 2016 (collectively, the Pernix Zohydro ER Patents). The Pernix Zohydro ER Patents are listed in the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the Orange Book) as covering Zohydro ER. Pernix Therapeutics, LLC (Pernix LLC) is the sole distributor of Zohydro ER in the United States. Pernix LLC and Pernix Ireland Pain Limited n/k/a PIP DAC (collectively for the purpose of this paragraph, Pernix) brought suit against Actavis and Alvogen in the District of Delaware on March 4, 2016, seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of the '760 Patent. The Complaints relating to the '760 Patent were served on March 7, 2016. Pernix filed and served First and Second Amended Complaints on May 13, 2016 and May 31, 2016 against Alvogen and Actavis, respectively, adding allegations of infringement with respect to the '982, '201, and '499 Patents. Actavis and Alvogen filed Motions to Dismiss the Complaints under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claims of the Pernix Zohydro ER Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. Briefing regarding the Motion to Dismiss was completed on July 11, 2016. United States Patent Nos. 9,421,200 (the '200 Patent) and 9,433,619 (the '619 Patent) issued on August 23, 2016 and September 5, 2016, respectively. Pernix filed and served Second and Third Amended Complaints, against Alvogen and Actavis respectively, on October 12, 2016, adding allegations of infringement with respect to the '200 and '619 Patents. Actavis and Alvogen filed their respective Answers on November 30, 2016, denying Pernix's infringement allegations, and raising Counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity as to each of the asserted patents. Pernix and Actavis entered into a settlement agreement on January 29, 2018. Under the terms of the agreement, Pernix will grant Actavis a license to begin selling a generic version of Zohydro ER on March 1, 2029, or earlier under certain circumstances. Other details of the settlement are confidential. The launch of Actavis's generic product is contingent upon Actavis receiving final approval from the FDA of its ANDA for a generic version of Zohydro ER. For the Alvogen case, trial testimony was heard from June 11-13, 2018, post-trial briefing was completed on July 12, 2018, and trial will conclude with the parties' closing arguments, to be heard on July 25, 2018 and the judge's final decision rendered on a date thereafter. Medicine to Go Pharmacies, Inc. v. Macoven Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., District Court of New Jersey Case No. 2:16-cv-07717. On October 23, 2016, Medicine to Go Pharmacies, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed an action against Pernix and its subsidiary, Macoven and unidentified individuals seeking redress for sending allegedly unlawful advertisements to facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227. On December 2, 2016, the Company filed its answers in defense of the allegations. The December 2013 fax campaign that is the subject of this litigation was administered by a third party, Odyssey Services, Inc. (Odyssey), which was not initially named as a defendant in this litigation. On June 22, 2017, the Company filed a third-party complaint against Odyssey, seeking indemnity and contribution for any amounts that the Company may be liable to pay to the Plaintiff. Odyssey answered the third-party complaint and, in addition, filed a counterclaim for indemnification against the Company, alleging that the Company, not Odyssey, was responsible for the content of the facsimiles transmitted, and thus is liable to Odyssey for any costs or judgments associated with this action. Odyssey filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the third-party claims against it; the Company has moved for summary judgment to hold Odyssey liable to indemnify the Company. Those motions are currently pending before the Court. The Company therefore may not be able to secure indemnification from Odyssey for costs that it might incur relative to this matter, and insurance defense and indemnity do not appear available to the Company. While in the process of attempting to quantify its potential liability and during the pendency of court decisions relative to the outstanding motions, the Company also entered into discussions with counsel for Plaintiff seeking a reduced settlement demand. A settlement conference was conducted by the Court on July 12, 2018 during which counsel for Plaintiff and the Company agreed in principle that for purposes of settlement the defendants will create a settlement fund and the Company will contribute a total of $1.2 million to said fund, which amount shall be final and includes any and all costs of the settlement, including payment of claims submitted by class members, class notice, settlement administration, Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, and any incentive award to Plaintiff. Further, the Company will not oppose Plaintiff's request that a Rule 23(b)(3) settlement class consisting of all persons and entities with fax numbers who received a copy of the December 2013 "Dear Pharmacist" fax be certified by the Court and the Company will agree that any unclaimed amounts of the settlement fund shall be distributed to one or more cy pres organizations to be selected by the Parties and subject to the approval of the Court. The parties are in the process of finalizing this settlement and obtaining court approval. Odyssey has not yet agreed to participate in this potential settlement. Opioids Litigation Beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, a number of pharmaceutical companies have been named in numerous lawsuits brought by certain state and local governments related to the marketing of opioid pain medications. The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription opioid pain medications and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps to prevent abuse and diversion. The suits generally seek penalties and/or injunctive and monetary relief. These cases are in early stages of litigation. In May 2018, the Company was notified that the State of Arkansas has named approximately 65 companies and individuals, including the Company, in an ongoing lawsuit relative to the marketing and sale of opioid pain medications. During the second quarter of 2018, the Company was also served with two additional lawsuits in which it was included as a defendant, both of which were filed in Philadelphia County, PA (UFCW Local 23 Health Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. and Iron Workers Dist. Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity, Benefit Fund v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.). At this time, the Company is unaware of whether it will be named in any of the other opioid pain medication lawsuits. The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted against it in these litigations but is unable to predict probable outcomes at this time. Other Commitments and Contingencies In July 2012 and January 2013, Somaxon settled two patent litigation claims with parties seeking to market generic equivalents of Silenor. As of June 30, 2018, remaining payment obligations of the Company owed under these settlement agreements are $500,000. The balance is payable in equal annual installments of $250,000 through 2019. The current portion is recorded in other liabilities - current and the non-current portion is recorded in other liabilities - long-term on the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2018. During the first quarter of 2014, the Company settled all claims arising from certain actions by Cypress under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act prior to its acquisition by the Company. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $12.0 million, payable in annual amounts of $2.0 million until the settlement is paid in full. As of June 30, 2018, the net present value of remaining payment obligations owed under this settlement agreement is $1.9 million and is recorded within other liabilities - current on the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2018. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Arbitration Pursuant to Amendment No. 2, the Company agreed that if on or before September 30, 2019, the Company (x) redeems or repurchases its 4.25% Convertible Notes for greater than 31.00 cents for every one dollar of principal amount outstanding or (y) exchange such notes for new notes or similar instruments that have a face value providing such exchanging holders a recovery that is greater than 31.00 cents for every one dollar of 4.25% Convertible Notes exchanged by such holders, the Company shall, no later than five business days thereafter, distribute to GSK additional cash or notes, as applicable, equal to such excess recovery, but in no event to exceed $2.0 million. GSK has agreed that for so long as the Company complies with the payment terms set forth in the Amendment No. 2, enforcement of the award will be stayed and GSK shall not seek to enforce or exercise any other remedies in respect of the award, and that the outstanding balance of the Award shall be unconditionally and irrevocably forgiven upon satisfaction of such terms. As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company has recorded $2.0 million as contingent consideration for the potential payment due by September 30, 2019 and is recorded in Arbitration Award on the Company's consolidated balance sheets. Also, the Company recorded $10.5 million as a gain from legal settlement for the year ended December 31, 2017 pursuant to Amendment No. 2 in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

11. Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 11. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

Pernix Ireland Pain Limited (n/k/a Pernix Ireland Pain Designated Activity Company) and Pernix Therapeutics, LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (Actavis), District of Delaware Case No. 16-138; Pernix Ireland Pain Limited. and Pernix Therapeutics, LLC v. Alvogen Malta Operations, Ltd. (Alvogen), District of Delaware Case No. 16-139.

PIP DAC is the owner of (a) U.S. Patent No. 9,265,760 (the '760 Patent), issued on February 23, 2016, (b) U.S. Patent No. 9,326,982 (the '982 Patent), issued on May 3, 2016, (c) U.S. Patent No. 9,333,201 (the '201 Patent), issued on May 10, 2016, and (d) U.S. Patent No. 9,339,499 (the '499 Patent), issued on May 17, 2016 (collectively, the Pernix Zohydro ER Patents). The Pernix Zohydro ER Patents are listed in the United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations (the Orange Book) as covering Zohydro ER. Pernix Therapeutics, LLC (Pernix LLC) is the sole distributor of Zohydro ER in the United States. Pernix LLC and Pernix Ireland Pain Limited n/k/a PIP DAC (collectively for the purpose of this paragraph, Pernix) brought suit against Actavis and Alvogen in the District of Delaware on March 4, 2016, seeking declaratory judgment of infringement of the '760 Patent. The Complaints relating to the '760 Patent were served on March 7, 2016. Pernix filed and served First and Second Amended Complaints on May 13, 2016 and May 31, 2016 against Alvogen and Actavis, respectively, adding allegations of infringement with respect to the '982, '201, and '499 Patents. Actavis and Alvogen filed Motions to Dismiss the Complaints under Rule 12(b)(6), asserting that the claims of the Pernix Zohydro ER Patents are invalid under 35 U.S.C. 101. Briefing regarding the Motion to Dismiss was completed on July 11, 2016. United States Patent Nos. 9,421,200 (the '200 Patent) and 9,433,619 (the '619 Patent) issued on August 23, 2016 and September 5, 2016, respectively. Pernix filed and served Second and Third Amended Complaints, against Alvogen and Actavis respectively, on October 12, 2016, adding allegations of infringement with respect to the '200 and '619 Patents. Actavis and Alvogen filed their respective Answers on November 30, 2016, denying Pernix's infringement allegations, and raising Counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity as to each of the asserted patents. Pernix and Actavis entered into a settlement agreement on January 29, 2018. Under the terms of the agreement, Pernix will grant Actavis a license to begin selling a generic version of Zohydro ER on March 1, 2029, or earlier under certain circumstances. Other details of the settlement are confidential. The launch of Actavis's generic product is contingent upon Actavis receiving final approval from the FDA of its ANDA for a generic version of Zohydro ER. For the Alvogen case, trial testimony was heard from June 11-13, 2018, post-trial briefing was completed on July 12, 2018, and trial will conclude with the parties' closing arguments, to be heard on July 25, 2018 and the judge's final decision rendered on a date thereafter.

Medicine to Go Pharmacies, Inc. v. Macoven Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Pernix Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., District Court of New Jersey Case No. 2:16-cv-07717.

On October 23, 2016, Medicine to Go Pharmacies, Inc. (Plaintiff) filed an action against Pernix and its subsidiary, Macoven and unidentified individuals seeking redress for sending allegedly unlawful advertisements to facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. 227. On December 2, 2016, the Company filed its answers in defense of the allegations. The December 2013 fax campaign that is the subject of this litigation was administered by a third party, Odyssey Services, Inc. (Odyssey), which was not initially named as a defendant in this litigation. On June 22, 2017, the Company filed a third-party complaint against Odyssey, seeking indemnity and contribution for any amounts that the Company may be liable to pay to the Plaintiff. Odyssey answered the third-party complaint and, in addition, filed a counterclaim for indemnification against the Company, alleging that the Company, not Odyssey, was responsible for the content of the facsimiles transmitted, and thus is liable to Odyssey for any costs or judgments associated with this action. Odyssey filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the third-party claims against it; the Company has moved for summary judgment to hold Odyssey liable to indemnify the Company. Those motions are currently pending before the Court. The Company therefore may not be able to secure indemnification from Odyssey for costs that it might incur relative to this matter, and insurance defense and indemnity do not appear available to the Company. While in the process of attempting to quantify its potential liability and during the pendency of court decisions relative to the outstanding motions, the Company also entered into discussions with counsel for Plaintiff seeking a reduced settlement demand. A settlement conference was conducted by the Court on July 12, 2018 during which counsel for Plaintiff and the Company agreed in principle that for purposes of settlement the defendants will create a settlement fund and the Company will contribute a total of $1.2 million to said fund, which amount shall be final and includes any and all costs of the settlement, including payment of claims submitted by class members, class notice, settlement administration, Plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs, and any incentive award to Plaintiff. Further, the Company will not oppose Plaintiff's request that a Rule 23(b)(3) settlement class consisting of all persons and entities with fax numbers who received a copy of the December 2013 "Dear Pharmacist" fax be certified by the Court and the Company will agree that any unclaimed amounts of the settlement fund shall be distributed to one or more cy pres organizations to be selected by the Parties and subject to the approval of the Court. The parties are in the process of finalizing this settlement and obtaining court approval. Odyssey has not yet agreed to participate in this potential settlement.

Opioids Litigation

Beginning in 2014 and continuing to the present, a number of pharmaceutical companies have been named in numerous lawsuits brought by certain state and local governments related to the marketing of opioid pain medications. The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription opioid pain medications and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps to prevent abuse and diversion. The suits generally seek penalties and/or injunctive and monetary relief. These cases are in early stages of litigation. In May 2018, the Company was notified that the State of Arkansas has named approximately 65 companies and individuals, including the Company, in an ongoing lawsuit relative to the marketing and sale of opioid pain medications. During the second quarter of 2018, the Company was also served with two additional lawsuits in which it was included as a defendant, both of which were filed in Philadelphia County, PA (UFCW Local 23 Health Fund v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. and Iron Workers Dist. Council of Philadelphia & Vicinity, Benefit Fund v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.). At this time, the Company is unaware of whether it will be named in any of the other opioid pain medication lawsuits.

The Company intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted against it in these litigations but is unable to predict probable outcomes at this time.

Other Commitments and Contingencies

In July 2012 and January 2013, Somaxon settled two patent litigation claims with parties seeking to market generic equivalents of Silenor. As of June 30, 2018, remaining payment obligations of the Company owed under these settlement agreements are $500,000. The balance is payable in equal annual installments of $250,000 through 2019. The current portion is recorded in other liabilities - current and the non-current portion is recorded in other liabilities - long-term on the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2018.

During the first quarter of 2014, the Company settled all claims arising from certain actions by Cypress under the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act prior to its acquisition by the Company. As part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $12.0 million, payable in annual amounts of $2.0 million until the settlement is paid in full. As of June 30, 2018, the net present value of remaining payment obligations owed under this settlement agreement is $1.9 million and is recorded within other liabilities - current on the Company's unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of June 30, 2018.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Arbitration

Pursuant to Amendment No. 2, the Company agreed that if on or before September 30, 2019, the Company (x) redeems or repurchases its 4.25% Convertible Notes for greater than 31.00 cents for every one dollar of principal amount outstanding or (y) exchange such notes for new notes or similar instruments that have a face value providing such exchanging holders a recovery that is greater than 31.00 cents for every one dollar of 4.25% Convertible Notes exchanged by such holders, the Company shall, no later than five business days thereafter, distribute to GSK additional cash or notes, as applicable, equal to such excess recovery, but in no event to exceed $2.0 million. GSK has agreed that for so long as the Company complies with the payment terms set forth in the Amendment No. 2, enforcement of the award will be stayed and GSK shall not seek to enforce or exercise any other remedies in respect of the award, and that the outstanding balance of the Award shall be unconditionally and irrevocably forgiven upon satisfaction of such terms. As of June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017, the Company has recorded $2.0 million as contingent consideration for the potential payment due by September 30, 2019 and is recorded in Arbitration Award on the Company's consolidated balance sheets. Also, the Company recorded $10.5 million as a gain from legal settlement for the year ended December 31, 2017 pursuant to Amendment No. 2 in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.