

16.	Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including patent infringement claims, product liability matters, environmental matters, employment disputes, contractual disputes and other commercial disputes, including those described below. The Company believes that these legal proceedings and claims likely will be resolved over an extended period of time. Although it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes, unless indicated below, given the information currently available, that their ultimate resolutions will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Governmental Proceedings

Multnomah County Lawsuit. On August 3, 2017, the County of Multnomah filed a lawsuit in Multnomah County Circuit Court in Oregon against certain prescription opioid manufacturers, including the Company, as well as distributors and healthcare providers. The lawsuit alleges the creation of a public nuisance arising from defendants’ manufacturing, distribution, marketing and promotion of opioids and alleges other common law claims. Plaintiff seeks economic damages and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Department of Justice Subpoena. On July 26, 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the Department of Justice for documents related to the marketing and sale of the Company’s opioid products.

Staubus, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. On June 13, 2017, the District Attorneys General of Tennessee’s First, Second and Third Judicial Districts and Baby Doe jointly filed a lawsuit in Sullivan County Circuit Court in Kingsport, Tennessee against certain prescription opioid manufacturers, including the Company. The lawsuit alleges violations of Tennessee’s Drug Dealer Liability Act and public nuisance laws arising out of defendants’ alleged opioid sales and marketing practices. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

SEC Subpoena. In January 2017, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC for documents related to the Company’s public statements, filings and other disclosures regarding Acthar sales, profits, revenue, promotion and pricing.

Boston Subpoena. In December 2016, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office ("USAO") for the District of Massachusetts for documents related to the Company’s provision of financial and other support to patients, including through charitable foundations, and related matters.

Texas Pricing Investigation. In November 2014, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division of the Texas Attorney General's Office. According to the CID, the Attorney General's office is investigating the possibility of false reporting of information by the Company regarding the prices of certain of its drugs used by Texas Medicaid to establish reimbursement rates for pharmacies that dispensed the Company's drugs to Texas Medicaid recipients.

Mallinckrodt Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and United States of America. The Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("the Complaint") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Greenbelt Division against the FDA and the United States of America in November 2014 for judicial review of what the Company believes is the FDA's inappropriate and unlawful reclassification of the Company's Methylphenidate HCl Extended-Release tablets USP (CII) ("Methylphenidate ER") in the Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence ("Orange Book") on November 13, 2014. In its Complaint, the Company asked the court to: issue an injunction to (a) set aside the FDA's reclassification of the Company's Methylphenidate ER products from freely substitutable at the pharmacy level (class AB) to presumed to be therapeutically inequivalent (class BX) in the Orange Book and (b) prohibit the FDA from reclassifying the Company's Methylphenidate ER products in the future without following applicable legal requirements; and issue a declaratory judgment that the FDA's action reclassifying the Company's Methylphenidate ER products in the Orange Book is unlawful. The Company concurrently filed a motion with the same court requesting an expedited hearing to issue a temporary restraining order ("TRO") directing the FDA to reinstate the Orange Book AB rating for the Company's Methylphenidate ER products on a temporary basis. The court denied the Company's motion for a TRO. In December 2014, the FDA filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint with the district court. The Company filed its opposition to the motion to dismiss in January 2015, and concurrently filed a motion for summary judgment. In July 2015, the court granted the FDA’s motion to dismiss with respect to three of the five counts in the Complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA with respect to the two remaining counts. The Company appealed the court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 18, 2016, the FDA initiated proceedings, proposing to withdraw approval of the Company's Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for Methylphenidate ER. On October 21, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order removing the Company’s pending litigation with the FDA from the Court’s oral argument calendar and placing that litigation in abeyance pending the outcome of the withdrawal proceedings. The Company concurrently submitted to the FDA requests for a hearing in the withdrawal proceeding and for a 90-day extension of the deadline for submitting documentation supporting the necessity of a hearing. The FDA granted the Company’s initial request to extend the deadline to March 20, 2017, and on February 21, 2017, the FDA suspended the deadline in order to give the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research ("CDER") an opportunity to complete its production of documents. CDER shared an initial set of documents with the Company in June 2017 and is in the process of finalizing a second set of documents to share with the Company. The Company is preparing the supporting documentation for its submission and plans to vigorously set forth its position in the withdrawal proceedings.

Therakos Investigation. In March 2014, the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requested the production of documents related to an investigation of the U.S. promotion of Therakos’ immunotherapy drug/device system UVADEX/UVAR XTS and UVADEX/CELLEX (collectively, the "Therakos System"), for indications not approved by the FDA, including treatment of patients with graft versus host disease ("GvHD") and solid organ transplant patients, including pediatric patients. The investigation also includes Therakos’ efforts to secure FDA approval for additional uses of, and alleged quality issues relating to, UVADEX/UVAR. In August 2015, the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania sent Therakos a subsequent request for documents related to the investigation and has since made certain related requests. We are in the process of responding to those requests.

FTC Investigation. In June 2014, Questcor Inc. ("Questcor") received a subpoena and CID from the FTC seeking documentary materials and information regarding the FTC's investigation into whether Questcor's acquisition of certain rights to develop, market, manufacture, distribute, sell and commercialize MNK-1411 (the product formerly described as Synacthen Depot®) from Novartis AG and Novartis Pharma AG (collectively, "Novartis") violates antitrust laws. Subsequently, California, Maryland, Texas, Washington, New York and Alaska (collectively, "the Investigating States") commenced similar investigations focused on whether the transaction violates state antitrust laws. On January 17, 2017, the FTC, all Investigating States (except California) ("the Settling States") and the Company entered into an agreement to resolve this matter for a one-time cash payment of $102.0 million and an agreement to license MNK-1411 to a third party designated by the FTC for possible development in Infantile Spasms ("IS") and Nephrotic Syndrome ("NS") in the U.S. To facilitate that settlement, a complaint was filed on January 18, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The settlement was approved by the court on January 30, 2017. On July 16, 2017, the Company announced the completion of the U.S. license of both the Synacthen trademark and certain intellectual property associated with MNK-1411 to West Pharmaceuticals to develop and pursue possible FDA approval of the product in IS and NS. The Company retains the right to develop MNK-1411 for all other indications in the U.S. and retains rights to the Synacthen trademark outside the U.S.

Questcor DOJ Investigation. In September 2012, Questcor received a subpoena from the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for information relating to its promotional practices related to Acthar. Questcor has also been informed by the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that the USAO for the Southern District of New York and the SEC are participating in the investigation to review Questcor's promotional practices and related matters related to Acthar. On March 9, 2015, the Company received a "No Action" letter from the SEC regarding its review of the Company's promotional practices related to Acthar.

DEA Investigation. In November 2011 and October 2012, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration requesting production of documents relating to its suspicious order monitoring program for controlled substances. The USAO for the Eastern District of Michigan is investigating the possibility that the Company failed to report suspicious orders of controlled substances during the period 2006-2011 in violation of the Controlled Substances Act and its related regulations. The USAO for the Northern District of New York and Office of Chief Counsel for the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") are investigating the possibility that the Company failed to maintain appropriate records and security measures with respect to manufacturing of certain controlled substances at its Hobart facility during the period 2012-2013. On July 11, 2017, the Company entered into a final settlement with the DEA and the USAOs for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Northern District of New York to settle these investigations. As part of the agreement, the Company paid $35.0 million to resolve all potential claims.

We have responded to or are in the process of responding to each of the unresolved subpoenas and CIDs and we intend to cooperate fully in each such investigation.

Patent/Antitrust Litigation

Putative Class Action Litigation. On April 6, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation ("UBC") in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The case is captioned City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories that paid for Acthar from August 2007 to the present. The lawsuit alleges that the Company engaged in anticompetitive, unfair, and deceptive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of Acthar. To this end, the suit alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen Depot; conspired with UBC and violated anti-racketeering laws by selling Acthar through an exclusive distributor; and committed a fraud on consumers by failing to correctly identify Acthar’s active ingredient on package inserts. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Inomax Patent Litigation: Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. (collectively "Praxair"). In February 2015, INO Therapeutics LLC and Ikaria, Inc., subsidiaries of the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Praxair following receipt of a January 2015 notice from Praxair concerning its submission of an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a generic version of Inomax. In July 2016, the Company filed a second suit against Praxair in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following receipt of a Paragraph IV notice concerning three additional patents recently added to the FDA Orange Book that was submitted by Praxair regarding its ANDA for a generic version of Inomax. The infringement claims in the second suit have been added to the original suit. In September 2016, the Company filed a third suit against Praxair in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware following receipt of a Paragraph IV notice concerning a fourth patent recently added to the FDA Orange Book that was submitted by Praxair regarding its ANDA for a generic version of Inomax.

The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Inomax in both the Inter Partes Review ("IPR") and Praxair litigation proceedings to prevent the marketing of infringing generic products prior to the expiration of the patents covering Inomax. Trial of the suit filed in February 2015 was held in March 2017 and a decision is not expected until later in 2017. An adverse outcome in the Praxair litigation ultimately could result in the launch of a generic version of Inomax before the expiration of the last of the listed patents on February 19, 2034 (August 19, 2034 including pediatric exclusivity), which could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of Inomax and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Inomax Patents: IPR Proceedings. In February 2015 and March 2015, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") issued Notices of Filing Dates Accorded to Petitions for IPR petitions filed by Praxair Distribution, Inc. concerning ten patents covering Inomax (i.e., five patents expiring in 2029 and five patents expiring in 2031).

In July 2015, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") issued rulings denying the institution of four of the five IPR petitions challenging the five patents expiring in 2029. The PTAB also issued a ruling in July 2015 that instituted the IPR proceeding in the fifth of this group of patents and the PTAB ruled in July 2016 that one claim of this patent survived review and is valid while the remaining claims were unpatentable. The Company believes the valid claim describes and encompasses the manner in which Inomax is distributed in conjunction with its approved labeling and that Praxair infringes that claim. Praxair filed an appeal and the Company filed a cross-appeal of this decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In March 2016, Praxair Distribution, Inc. submitted additional IPR petitions for the five patents expiring in 2029. The PTAB issued non-appealable rulings in August and September 2016 denying institution of all five of these additional IPR petitions.

In September 2015, the USPTO PTAB issued rulings that instituted the IPR proceedings in each of the second set of five patents that expire in 2031. In September 2016, the PTAB ruled that all claims in the five patents expiring in 2031 are patentable.

Ofirmev Patent Litigation: B. Braun Medical Inc. In April 2017, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against B. Braun Medical Inc. ("B. Braun") alleging that B. Braun infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,992,218 ("the ‘218 patent") and 9,399,012 ("the ‘012 patent") following receipt of a February 2017 notice from B. Braun concerning its submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA"), containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. Following receipt of a second Paragraph IV notice letter from B. Braun on April 24, 2017 directed to the ‘012 patent, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. and Mallinckrodt IP filed suit in June 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against B. Braun alleging that B. Braun infringed the ‘012 patent and U.S. 9,610,265 (“the ‘265 patent”). In both instances, a protective suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to protect the 30-month stay against any venue challenge in Delaware. In July 2017, B. Braun filed motions to dismiss both actions in Delaware due to improper venue based on the recent U.S. Supreme Court TC Heartland decision on venue in patent cases, and also filed a separate motion to dismiss in the original action in Pennsylvania. Following receipt of a third Paragraph IV notice letter from B. Braun on July 13, 2017 that included a certification to the ‘265 patent, amended complaints were filed in July 2017 in the U.S. District Courts for the Districts of Delaware and Eastern District of Pennsylvania by Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc., Mallinckrodt IP and Pharmatop. Also in July 2017, Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc., Mallinckrodt IP and Pharmatop filed a motion to stay the action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Ofirmev Patent Litigation: Agila Specialties Private Limited, Inc. (now Mylan Laboratories Ltd.) and Agila Specialties Inc. (a Mylan Inc. Company), (collectively “Agila”). In December 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Agila alleging that Agila infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and the '218 patent following receipt of a November 2014 notice from Agila concerning its submission of a NDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. Separately, on December 1, 2016 Mallinckrodt IP filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Agila alleging that Agila infringed the ‘012 patent. On December 31, 2016, the parties entered into settlement agreements on both suits under which Agila was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its NDA on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances.

Ofirmev Patent Litigation: InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. In September 2014, Cadence and Mallinckrodt IP, subsidiaries of the Company, and Pharmatop, the owner of the two U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma Licensing LLC and InnoPharma, Inc. (both are subsidiaries of Pfizer and collectively "InnoPharma") alleging that InnoPharma infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,028,222 ("the '222 patent") and the '218 patent following receipt of an August 2014 notice from InnoPharma concerning its submission of a New Drug Application ("NDA"), containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. Separately, on December 1, 2016 Mallinckrodt IP filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma alleging that InnoPharma infringed the ‘012 patent. On May 4, 2017, the parties entered into settlement agreements on both suits under which InnoPharma was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its NDA on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances.

The Company has successfully asserted the ‘222 and ‘218 patents and maintained their validity in both litigation and proceedings at the USPTO. The Company will continue to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Ofirmev to prevent the marketing of infringing generic or competing products prior to December 6, 2020, which, if unsuccessful, could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of Ofirmev and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Tyco Healthcare Group LP, et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. In March 2007, the Company filed a patent infringement suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., et al. (collectively, "Mutual") after Mutual submitted an ANDA to the FDA seeking to sell a generic version of the Company's 7.5 mg RESTORIL™ sleep aid product. Mutual also filed antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. The patents at issue have since expired or been found invalid. The trial court issued an opinion and order granting the Company's motion for summary judgment regarding Mutual's antitrust and unfair competition counterclaims. Mutual appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Federal Circuit issued a split decision, affirming the trial court in part and remanding to the trial court certain counterclaims for further proceedings. The Company filed a motion for summary judgment with the U.S. District Court regarding the remanded issues. In May 2015, the trial court issued an opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part the Company’s motion for summary judgment. In March 2017, the parties entered into a settlement agreement and the case was dismissed.

Commercial and Securities Litigation

Employee Stock Purchase Plan Securities Litigation. On July 20, 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through Mallinckrodt’s Employee Stock Purchase Plans (“ESPPs”), filed a derivative lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer Mark C. Trudeau ("CEO") , its Chief Financial Officer Matthew K. Harbaugh ("CFO"), its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former directors of the Company. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt stock between November 25, 2014, and January 18, 2017, in the ESPPs. In the alternative, the plaintiff alleges a class action for those same purchasers/acquirers of stock in the ESPPs during the same period. The complaint asserts claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act, and for breach of fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, mismanagement of the ESPPs’ assets and breach of contract arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the putative class action securities litigation described in the following paragraph. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation. On January 23, 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its CEO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased Mallinckrodt’s publicly traded securities on a domestic exchange between November 25, 2014 and January 18, 2017. The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company made false or misleading statements related to Acthar and Synacthen to artificially inflate the price of the Company’s stock. In particular, the complaint alleges a failure by the Company to provide accurate disclosures concerning the long-term sustainability of Acthar revenues, and the exposure of Acthar to Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates. On January 26, 2017, a second putative class action lawsuit, captioned Jyotindra Patel v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Patel complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Shenk lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 13, 2017, a third putative class action lawsuit, captioned Amy T. Schwartz, et al., v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the same defendants named in the Shenk lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Schwartz complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased shares of the Company between July 14, 2014 and January 18, 2017 and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 23, 2017, a fourth putative class action lawsuit, captioned Fulton County Employees’ Retirement System v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., was filed against the Company and its CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Fulton County complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders during the same period of time as that set forth in the Schwartz lawsuit and asserts claims similar to those set forth in the Shenk lawsuit. On March 27, 2017, four separate plaintiff groups moved to consolidate the pending cases and to be appointed as lead plaintiffs in the consolidated case. Since that time, two of the plaintiff groups have withdrawn their motions. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Retrophin Litigation. In January 2014, Retrophin, Inc. ("Retrophin") filed a lawsuit against Questcor in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging a variety of federal and state antitrust violations based on Questcor's acquisition from Novartis of certain rights to develop, market, manufacture, distribute, sell and commercialize Synacthen. In June 2015, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, under the terms of which Retrophin agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and Questcor agreed to make a one-time cash payment to Retrophin in the amount of $15.5 million.

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation. In September 2012, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Questcor and certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, captioned John K. Norton v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, et al. The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of shareholders who purchased Questcor common stock between April 26, 2011 and September 21, 2012. The complaint generally alleged that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors engaged in various acts to artificially inflate the price of Questcor stock and enable insiders to profit through stock sales. The complaint asserted that Questcor and certain of its officers and directors violated sections l0(b) and/or 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("the Exchange Act"), by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements concerning the clinical evidence to support the use of Acthar for indications other than infantile spasms, the promotion of the sale and use of Acthar in the treatment of multiple sclerosis and nephrotic syndrome, reimbursement for Acthar from third-party insurers, and Questcor's outlook and potential market growth for Acthar. The complaint sought damages in an unspecified amount and equitable relief against the defendants. This lawsuit was consolidated with four subsequently-filed actions asserting similar claims under the caption: In re Questcor Securities Litigation. In October 2013, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Questcor's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. In October 2013, Questcor filed an answer to the consolidated amended complaint and fact discovery was concluded in January 2015. In April 2015, the parties executed a long-form settlement agreement, under the terms of which Questcor agreed to pay $38.0 million to resolve the plaintiff's claims, inclusive of all fees and costs. Questcor and the individual defendants maintain that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit, and entered into the settlement to eliminate the uncertainties, burden and expense of further protracted litigation. During fiscal 2015, the Company established a $38.0 million reserve for this settlement, which was subsequently paid to a settlement fund. The court issued its final approval of the settlement on September 18, 2015.

Glenridge Litigation. In June 2011, Glenridge Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Glenridge"), filed a lawsuit against Questcor in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County, alleging that Questcor had underpaid royalties to Glenridge under a royalty agreement related to net sales of Acthar. In August 2012, Questcor filed a separate lawsuit against the three principals of Glenridge, as well as Glenridge, challenging the enforceability of the royalty agreement. In August 2013, the lawsuits were consolidated into one case in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. In October 2014, the parties entered into a binding term sheet settling the lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, the royalty rate payable by Questcor was reduced, royalties were capped instead of being payable for so long as Acthar was sold and Questcor agreed to pay Glenridge a reduced amount in satisfaction of royalties Questcor had previously accrued but not paid during the course of the lawsuit. In February 2015, the settlement agreement was finalized, with terms consistent with the October 2014 term sheet.

Pricing Litigation

State of Utah v. Apotex Corp., et al. The Company, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, was a defendant in this matter which was filed in May 2008, in the Third Judicial Circuit of Salt Lake County, Utah. The State of Utah alleges, generally, that the defendants reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Utah Medicaid, resulting in overpayment by Utah Medicaid for those drugs, and is seeking monetary damages and attorneys' fees. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these claims and vigorously defended against them. In December 2015, the parties entered into a binding settlement agreement, under the terms of which the State of Utah agreed to dismiss the litigation with prejudice and the Company agreed to make a one-time cash payment to the State of Utah within the reserve established for this matter.

Environmental Remediation and Litigation Proceedings

The Company is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites, including those described below. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash outlays is difficult to predict, given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. The Company concluded that, as of June 30, 2017, it was probable that it would incur remedial costs in the range of $38.0 million to $116.1 million. The Company also concluded that, as of June 30, 2017, the best estimate within this range was $75.9 million, of which $2.3 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the remainder was included in environmental liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2017. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these matters, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the final resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Coldwater Creek, Saint Louis County, Missouri. The Company is named as a defendant in numerous tort complaints with numerous plaintiffs pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri that were filed in or after February 2012. These cases allege personal injury for alleged exposure to radiological substances, including in Coldwater Creek in Missouri, and in the air. Plaintiffs allegedly lived and/or worked in various locations in Saint Louis County, Missouri, near Coldwater Creek. Radiological residues which may have been present in the creek have previously been remediated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("USACE"). The USACE continues to study and remediate the creek and surrounding areas. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these complaints and is vigorously defending against them. The Company is unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible losses for the following reasons: (i) the proceedings are in intermediate stages; (ii) the Company has not received and reviewed complete information regarding the plaintiffs and their medical conditions; and (iii) there are significant factual and scientific issues to be resolved. Groups of bellwether plaintiffs have been selected by the court and discovery is ongoing. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of this case, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the final resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Lower Passaic River, New Jersey. The Company and approximately 70 other companies originally comprised the Lower Passaic Cooperating Parties Group ("the CPG") and are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") of the 17-mile stretch known as the Lower Passaic River Study Area ("the River"). The Company's potential liability stems from former operations at Lodi and Belleville, New Jersey. In June 2007, the EPA issued a draft Focused Feasibility Study ("FFS") that considered interim remedial options for the lower 8-miles of the river, in addition to a "no action" option. As an interim step related to the 2007 AOC, on June 18, 2012 the CPG voluntarily entered into an AOC with the EPA for remediation actions focused solely at mile 10.9 of the River. The Company's estimated costs related to the RI/FS and focused remediation at mile 10.9, based on interim allocations, are immaterial and have been accrued.

In April 2014, the EPA issued its revised FFS, with remedial alternatives to address cleanup of the lower 8-mile stretch of the River, which also included a "no action" option. The EPA estimated the cost for the remediation alternatives ranged from $365.0 million to $3.2 billion. The EPA's preferred approach would involve bank-to-bank dredging of the lower 8-mile stretch of the River and installing an engineered cap at a discounted, estimated cost of $1.7 billion. Based on the issuance of the EPA's revised FFS, the Company recorded a $23.1 million accrual in the second quarter of fiscal 2014 representing the Company's estimate of its allocable share of the joint and several remediation liability resulting from this matter.

In April 2015, the CPG presented a draft of the RI/FS of the River to the EPA. The CPG's RI/FS included alternatives that ranged from "no action," targeted remediation of the entire 17-mile stretch of the River to remedial actions consistent with the EPA's preferred approach for the lower 8-mile stretch of the River and also included remediation alternatives for the upper 9-mile stretch of the River. The discounted cost estimates for the CPG remediation alternatives ranged from $483.4 million to $2.7 billion. The Company recorded an additional accrual of $13.3 million in the second quarter of fiscal 2015 based on the Company's estimate of its allocable share of the joint and several remediation liability resulting from this matter.

On November 20, 2015, the Company withdrew from the CPG, but remains liable for its obligations under the two above-referenced AOCs, as well as potential future liabilities.

On March 4, 2016, the EPA issued the Record of Decision ("ROD") for the lower 8 miles of the River. The EPA's selected remedy for this stretch of the River was a slight modification of the preferred approach it identified in the revised FFS issued in April 2014. The new discounted, estimated cost is $1.38 billion. By letter dated March 31, 2016, EPA notified the Company, and approximately 98 other parties, of the Company’s potential liability for the lower 8 miles of the River. The letter also announced the EPA's intent to seek to determine whether one company, Occidental Chemicals Corporation ("OCC"), will voluntarily enter into an agreement to perform the remedial design for the remedy selected in the ROD. The letter states that, after execution of such an agreement, EPA plans to begin negotiation of an agreement under which OCC and the other major PRPs would implement and/or pay for the EPA’s selected remedy for the lower 8 miles of the River. Finally, the letter announced EPA's intent to provide a separate notice to unspecified parties of the opportunity to discuss a cash out settlement for the lower 8 miles of the River at a later date. On October 5, 2016, EPA announced that OCC had entered into an agreement to develop the remedial design.

By letter dated March 30, 2017, the EPA notified the Company, limited to its former Lodi facility, and nineteen other PRPs of their eligibility to enter into a cash out settlement for the lower 8 miles of the River. In exchange for the settlement, the Company would receive, inter alia, a covenant not to sue and contribution protection. There is no reopener provision should costs exceed estimated amounts. The Company submitted the executed settlement agreement to EPA on July 26, 2017. The settlement will be announced in the Federal Register and be subject to public comment, after which EPA will determine whether to proceed with the settlement.

Despite the issuance of the revised FFS and ROD by the EPA, and the RI/FS by the CPG, there are many uncertainties associated with the final agreed-upon remediation and the Company's allocable share of the remediation. Given those uncertainties, the amounts accrued may not be indicative of the amounts for which the Company may be ultimately responsible and will be refined as the remediation progresses.

Mallinckrodt Veterinary, Inc., Millsboro, Delaware. The Company previously operated a plant in Millsboro, Delaware ("the Millsboro Site") where various animal healthcare products were manufactured. In 2005, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control found trichloroethylene ("TCE") in the Millsboro public water supply at levels that exceeded the federal drinking water standards. Further investigation to identify the TCE plume in the ground water indicated that the plume has extended to property owned by a third party near the Millsboro Site. The Company, and another former owner, have assumed responsibility for the Millsboro Site cleanup under the Alternative Superfund Program administered by the EPA. The Company and another PRP have entered into two AOCs with the EPA to perform investigations to abate, mitigate or eliminate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances at the Millsboro Site and to conduct an Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis ("EE/CA") to characterize the nature and extent of the contamination. The Company, along with the other party, continues to conduct the studies and prepare remediation plans in accordance with the AOCs. In January 2017, the EPA issued its Action Memorandum regarding the EE/CA. The parties have negotiated a third AOC to implement the removal action. The Company submitted the executed AOC to EPA on July 26, 2017. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Superfund Site, near Marion, Illinois. The Company is a successor in interest to International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation ("IMC"). Between 1967 and 1982, IMC leased portions of the Additional and Uncharacterized Sites ("AUS") Operable Unit at the Crab Orchard Superfund Site ("the Site") from the government and manufactured various explosives for use in mining and other operations. In March 2002, the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of the Interior and the EPA (together, "the Government Agencies") issued a special notice letter to General Dynamics Ordnance and Tactical Systems, Inc. ("General Dynamics"), one of the other potentially responsible parties ("PRPs") at the Site, to compel General Dynamics to perform the RI/FS for the AUS Operable Unit. General Dynamics negotiated an AOC with the Government Agencies to conduct an extensive RI/FS at the Site under the direction of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. General Dynamics asserted in August 2004 that the Company is jointly and severally liable, along with approximately eight other lessees and operators at the AUS Operable Unit, for alleged contamination of soils and groundwater resulting from historic operations, and has threatened to file a contribution claim against the Company and other parties for recovery of its costs incurred in connection with the RI/FS activities being conducted at the AUS Operable Unit. The Company and other PRPs who received demand letters from General Dynamics have explored settlement alternatives, but have not reached settlement to date. General Dynamics has completed the RI and initiated the FS, and the PRPs have reached an agreement to enter into a non-binding mediation process, which has begun. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the final resolution of all known claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Products Liability Litigation

Beginning with lawsuits brought in July 1976, the Company is named as a defendant in personal injury lawsuits based on alleged exposure to asbestos-containing materials. A majority of the cases involve product liability claims based principally on allegations of past distribution of products containing asbestos. A limited number of the cases allege premises liability based on claims that individuals were exposed to asbestos while on the Company's property. Each case typically names dozens of corporate defendants in addition to the Company. The complaints generally seek monetary damages for personal injury or bodily injury resulting from alleged exposure to products containing asbestos. The Company's involvement in asbestos cases has been limited because it did not mine or produce asbestos. Furthermore, in the Company's experience, a large percentage of these claims have never been substantiated and have been dismissed by the courts. The Company has not suffered an adverse verdict in a trial court proceeding related to asbestos claims and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in these matters. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of June 30, 2017, there were approximately 11,600 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims and claims that were incurred but not reported and related insurance recoveries, which are recorded on a gross basis in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company's estimate of its liability for pending and future claims is based on claims experience over the past five years and covers claims either currently filed or expected to be filed over the next seven years. The Company believes that it has adequate amounts recorded related to these matters. While it is not possible at this time to determine with certainty the ultimate outcome of these asbestos-related proceedings, the Company believes, given the information currently available, that the ultimate resolutions of all known and anticipated future claims, after taking into account amounts already accrued, along with recoveries from insurance, will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Industrial Revenue Bonds

Through June 30, 2017, the Company exchanged title to $16.0 million of its plant assets in return for an equal amount of Industrial Revenue Bonds ("IRB") issued by Saint Louis County. The Company also simultaneously leased such assets back from Saint Louis County under capital leases expiring through December 2025, the terms of which provide it with the right of offset against the IRBs. The lease also provides an option for the Company to repurchase the assets at the end of the lease for nominal consideration. These transactions collectively result in a ten year property tax abatement from the date the property is placed in service. Due to the right of offset, the capital lease obligations and IRB assets are recorded net in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets. The Company expects that the right of offset will be applied to payments required under these arrangements.

Interest Bearing Deferred Tax Obligation

As part of the integration of Questcor, the Company entered into an internal installment sale transaction related to certain Acthar intangible assets during the three months ended December 26, 2014. The installment sale transaction resulted in a taxable gain. In accordance with Internal Revenue Code Section 453A ("Section 453A") the gain is considered taxable in the period in which installment payments are received. During the three months ended December 25, 2015, the Company entered into similar transactions with certain intangible assets acquired in the acquisitions of Ikaria, Inc. and Therakos, Inc. During the three months ended March 31, 2017, the Company sold its Intrathecal Therapy business with a portion of the consideration from the sale being in the form of a note receivable subject to the installment sale provisions described above. As of June 30, 2017, the Company had an aggregate $1,781.7 million of interest bearing U.S. deferred tax liabilities associated with outstanding installment notes. The GAAP calculation of interest associated with these deferred tax liabilities is subject to variable interest rates. The Company recognized interest expense associated with the Section 453A deferred tax liabilities of $17.8 million and $18.6 million for the three months ended June 30, 2017 and June 24, 2016, respectively, and $36.2 million and $37.7 million for the six months ended June 30, 2017 and June 24, 2016, respectively.

The Company has reported Section 453A interest on its tax returns on the basis of its interpretation of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code and Regulations. Alternative interpretations of these provisions could result in additional interest payable on the deferred tax liability. Due to the inherent uncertainty in these interpretations, the Company has deferred the recognition of the benefit associated with the Company’s interpretation and maintains a corresponding liability of $38.8 million and $30.3 million as of June 30, 2017 and December 30, 2016, respectively. The balance of this liability is expected to increase over future periods until such uncertainty is resolved. Favorable resolution of this uncertainty would likely result in a material reversal of this liability and a benefit being recorded to interest expense within the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of income.

Acquisition-Related Litigation

Several putative class actions were filed by purported holders of Questcor common stock in connection with the Questcor Acquisition (Hansen v. Thompson, et al., Heng v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Buck v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Ellerbeck v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Yokem v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Richter v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Tramantano v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Crippen v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Patel v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., and Postow v. Questcor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.). The actions were consolidated on June 3, 2014. The consolidated complaint named as defendants, and generally alleged that, the directors of Questcor breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the acquisition by, among other things, agreeing to sell Questcor for inadequate consideration and pursuant to an inadequate process. The consolidated complaint also alleged that the Questcor directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to shareholders in connection with the merger. The consolidated complaint also alleged, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted the purported breaches of fiduciary duty. The lawsuits sought various forms of relief, including but not limited to, rescission of the transaction, damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 29, 2014, the defendants reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs in the consolidated actions, and that agreement was reflected in a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"). In connection with the settlement contemplated by the MOU, Questcor agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed transaction with the Company, which are contained in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on July 30, 2014. Additionally, as part of the settlement and pursuant to the MOU, the Company agreed to forbear from exercising certain rights under the merger agreement with Questcor, as follows: the four business day period referenced in Section 5.3(e) of the merger agreement with Questcor was reduced to three business days. Consistent with the terms of the MOU, the parties entered into a formal stipulation of settlement in February 2015 and re-executed the stipulation of settlement on May 7, 2015 (collectively the "Stipulation of Settlement").

The Stipulation of Settlement was subject to customary conditions, including court approval. On May 8, 2015, the California Court denied plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement. On October 23, 2015, the parties submitted a proposed Stipulation and Order re Dismissal With Prejudice dismissing the action with prejudice as to each of the named plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the remainder of the class and, on October 30, 2015, the California Court entered that Order.

Other Matters

The Company is a defendant in a number of other pending legal proceedings relating to present and former operations, acquisitions and dispositions. The Company does not expect the outcome of these proceedings, either individually or in the aggregate, to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.