Since 2017, multiple U.S. states, counties, a territory, other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs have filed lawsuits against certain entities of the Company, as well as various other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies, pharmacy benefit managers, individual doctors and/or others, asserting claims relating to defendants' alleged sales, marketing, distribution, reimbursement, prescribing, dispensing and/or other practices with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain of the Company's products. As of November 3, 2020, the cases the Company is aware of include, but are not limited to, approximately 2,618 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 270 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers; approximately 128 cases filed by individuals; approximately six cases filed by schools and school boards; and 17 cases filed by the Attorneys General for New Mexico, Kentucky, Rhode Island, Georgia, Florida, Alaska, New York, Nevada, South Dakota, New Hampshire, Louisiana, Illinois, Mississippi, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, Ohio, and Idaho, with Idaho being the only state Attorney General to file in federal as opposed to state court. As of November 3, 2020, the Mallinckrodt defendants in these cases consist of Mallinckrodt plc and the following subsidiaries of Mallinckrodt plc: Mallinckrodt Enterprises LLC, Mallinckrodt LLC, SpecGx LLC, Mallinckrodt Brand Pharmaceuticals Inc., Mallinckrodt Inc., MNK 2011 Inc., and Mallinckrodt Enterprises Holdings, Inc. On November 22, 2019, the Delaware Attorney General filed a motion in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware to amend its complaint to add certain entities of the Company, which the court granted on December 18, 2019. The Delaware Attorney General has not yet filed its amended complaint. The Hawaii Attorney General filed a complaint against the Company on June 3, 2019. On December 27, 2019, the First Circuit Court entered a written order dismissing the Hawaii Attorney General's claims against all defendants without prejudice, finding that the allegations in the State's complaint failed to give notice of the claims against the defendants. Certain of the lawsuits have been filed as putative class actions. On October 8, 2020, the State of Rhode Island filed a lawsuit against the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark C. Trudeau, asserting similar claims relating to the marketing and distribution of prescription opioid medications.

Most pending federal lawsuits have been coordinated in a federal multi-district litigation ("MDL") pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The MDL court has issued a series of case management orders permitting motion practice addressing threshold legal issues in certain cases, allowing discovery, setting pre-trial deadlines and setting a trial date on October 21, 2019 for two cases originally filed in the Northern District of Ohio by Summit County and Cuyahoga County against opioid manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies ("Track 1 Cases"). The counties claimed that opioid manufacturers' marketing activities changed the medical standard of care for treating both chronic and acute pain, which led to increases in the sales of their prescription opioid products. They also alleged that opioid manufacturers' and distributors' failure to maintain effective controls against diversion was a substantial cause of the opioid crisis. On September 30, 2019, the Company announced that Mallinckrodt plc, along with its wholly owned subsidiaries Mallinckrodt LLC and SpecGx LLC, had executed a definitive settlement agreement and release with Cuyahoga and Summit Counties in Ohio. The settlement fully resolves the Track 1 cases against all named Mallinckrodt entities that were scheduled to go to trial in October 2019 in the MDL. Under the agreement, the Company paid $24.0 million in cash on October

1, 2019. In addition, the Company will provide $6.0 million in generic products, including addiction treatment products, and will also provide a $0.5 million payment in two years in recognition of the counties' time and expenses. Further, in the event of a comprehensive resolution of government-related opioid claims, the Company has agreed that the two plaintiff counties will receive the value they would have received under such a resolution, less the payments described above. All named Mallinckrodt entities were dismissed with prejudice from the lawsuit. The value of the settlement should not be extrapolated to any other opioid-related cases or claims. On October 21, 2019, the MDL court issued a Stipulated Dismissal Order dismissing the claims against the remaining manufacturers and distributors pursuant to a settlement agreement, and severing the claims against the remaining pharmacy defendants to be heard in a subsequent trial, currently scheduled for November 9, 2020. Judge Polster issued Suggestions of Remand for City and County of San Francisco, California and City of Chicago, Illinois. Both cases have been remanded, respectively, to the Northern District of California and the Northern District of Illinois. Manufacturer defendants moved to dismiss the City of San Francisco action on April 20, 2020, which the Company joined. The motion was granted in part and denied in part on September 30, 2020. On October 23, 2020, the MDL court set a trial for October 25, 2021. Additionally, all manufacturer defendants, including us, were severed from the "Track Two" MDL cases, City of Huntington and Cabell County Commission, West Virginia. Those cases have subsequently been remanded to the Southern District of West Virginia.

Other lawsuits remain pending in various state courts. In some jurisdictions, such as Arizona, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain of the 247 state lawsuits have been consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial proceedings before a single court within their respective state court systems. State cases are generally at the pleading and/or discovery stage. Trials have been set in certain state cases, including in Arizona (June 1, 2021), Florida (April 4, 2022), Georgia (May 26, 2022), Maryland (December 7, 2021), Missouri (June 2022), 2021), Nevada (April 18, 2022), New Mexico (September 6, 2022), Rhode Island (January 19, 2021), and West Virginia (November 1, 2021). In Texas, the first of two bellwether trials is set to be ready for jury trial on September 27, 2021. The Company is not named as a defendant in the primary bellwether for that first trial, but is named as a defendant in the alternate bellwether for the first trial. The date and candidates for the second bellwether trial have not yet been selected. On March 26, 2020, the Supreme Court of Tennessee granted defendants’ application for permission to appeal the judgment of the Tennessee Court of Appeals in Effler et al. v. Purdue Pharma, LP et al., No. 16596, which reversed the Circuit Court for Campbell County’s grant of defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under Tennessee’s Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA). Oral argument in the Effler appeal was held on September 2, 2020. A successful ruling from the Tennessee Supreme Court in Effler would also require dismissal of the DDLA claim brought by the district attorney general plaintiffs in Staubus et al. v. Purdue Pharma, LP et al., No. C-41916. The Staubus trial has been continued in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County. There is no trial date set at this time.

The lawsuits assert a variety of claims, including, but not limited to, public nuisance, negligence, civil conspiracy, fraud, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") or similar state laws, violations of state Controlled Substances Acts or state False Claims Acts ("FCA"), product liability, consumer fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, false advertising, insurance fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence and negligent misrepresentation, and other common law and statutory claims arising from defendants' manufacturing, distribution, marketing and promotion of opioids and seek restitution, damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys' fees and costs. The claims generally are based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription opioid medications and/or an alleged failure to take adequate steps to prevent diversion.

Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement. On February 25, 2020, the Company announced that it had reached an agreement in principle with a court-appointed plaintiffs' executive committee representing the interest of thousands of plaintiffs in the MDL and supported by a broad-based group of 48 state and U.S. Territory Attorneys General on the terms of a global settlement that would resolve all opioid-related claims against the Company and its subsidiaries (the "Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement"). The Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement contemplated the filing of voluntary petitions under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter 11") by certain subsidiaries of Mallinckrodt plc operating the Specialty Generics business (the "Specialty Generics Subsidiaries") and the establishment of a trust for the benefit of plaintiffs holding opioid-related claims against the Company (the "Opioid Claimant Trust"). Subject to the Settlement Closing (as defined below), the Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement also provided that the Company would make certain structured payments to the Opioid Claimant Trust. It was contemplated that, pursuant to the terms of a channeling injunction and third-party release, which would be subject to court approval, all persons or entities asserting opioid-related claims against the Company would recover solely from the Opioid Claimant Trust on account of such claims. The Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement provided for:

Other Opioid-Related Matters. In addition to the lawsuits described above, certain entities of the Company have received subpoenas and civil investigative demands ("CID(s)") for information concerning the sale, marketing and/or distribution of prescription opioid medications and the Company's suspicious order monitoring programs, including from the U.S. DOJ and the Attorneys General for Missouri, New Hampshire, Kentucky, Washington, Alaska, South Carolina, Puerto Rico, New York, West Virginia, Indiana, the Divisions of Consumer Protection and Occupational and Professional Licensing of the Utah Department of Commerce, and the New York State Department of Financial Services. The Company has been contacted by the coalition of State Attorneys General investigating the role manufacturers and distributors may have had in contributing to the increased use of opioids in the U.S. On January 27, 2018, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorneys' Office ("USAO") for the Southern District of Florida for documents related to the distribution, marketing and sale of generic oxymorphone products. On April 17, 2019, the Company received a grand jury subpoena from the USAO for the Eastern District of New York ("EDNY") for documents related to the sales and marketing of controlled substances, the policies and procedures regarding controlled substances, and other related documents. On June 4, 2019, the Company received a rider from the USAO for EDNY requesting additional documents regarding the Company's anti-diversion program. The Company is responding or has responded to these subpoenas, CIDs and any informal requests for documents.

On April 21, 2020, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced that the New York State Department of Financial Services had filed a Statement of Charges against Mallinckrodt, including allegations that it misrepresented the safety and efficacy of its branded and unbranded opioid products and downplayed the risks of negative outcomes to patients, resulting in claims for payment of medically unnecessary opioid prescriptions to commercial insurance companies. The Statement of Charges claims that Mallinckrodt violated Section 403 of the New York Insurance Law, which prohibits fraudulent insurance acts and includes penalties of up to $5,000 plus the amount of the fraudulent claim for each violation. It further alleges that Mallinckrodt violated Section 408 of the Financial Services Law, which prohibits intentional fraud or intentional misrepresentation of a material fact with respect to a financial product or service and includes penalties of up to $5,000 per violation. The Department claims that each fraudulent prescription constitutes a separate violation of these laws. A hearing on the Statement of Charges was scheduled for January 25, 2021, but the Department of Financial Services agreed to a voluntary stay on October 15, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

behalf of any persons (1) prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia after March 1, 2014, (2) covered by Pharmacare Plan C within British Columbia who were prescribed Methadose for opioid agonist treatment after February 1, 2014, (3) who transitioned from compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment in British Columbia after March 1, 2014, or (4) covered by Pharmacare Plan C within British Columbia who were transitioned from compounded methadone to Methadose for opioid agonist treatment after February 1, 2014. The suit generally alleges that the Province’s decision to grant Methadose coverage under Pharmacare Plan C and remove compounded methadone from coverage under Pharmacare Plan C had adversely affected those being treated for opioid use disorder. The suit asserts that the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt defendants failed to warn patients about, and made false representations concerning, the efficacy of Methadose and the risks of switching from compounded methadone to Methadose. The suit seeks general, special, aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount, costs and interest and injunctive relief against the Province, the College and the Mallinckrodt defendants. Pursuant to two orders granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Commercial List) on October 15, 2020, the Chapter 11 proceedings commenced by Mallinckrodt plc and Mallinckrodt Canada ULC pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code were recognized and given effect in Canada. Among other things, the Canadian Court has stayed all proceedings against the Mallinckrodt defendants, including the British Columbia class action proceedings. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

New York State Opioid Stewardship Act. On October 24, 2018, the Company filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against the State of New York, asking the court to declare New York State's Opioid Stewardship Act ("OSA") unconstitutional and to enjoin its enforcement. On December 19, 2018, the court declared the OSA unconstitutional and granted the Company's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. On January 17, 2019, the State of New York appealed the court's decision. On September 14, 2020, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed in part the lower court’s judgment, finding that the lower court should have dismissed the Company’s (and other parties’) challenges to the OSA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Company disagrees with the decision and continues to evaluate its options with respect to the decision. In April 2019, the State of New York passed its 2020 budget, which amended the OSA so that if the OSA decision is reversed on appeal, the OSA would apply only to the sale or distribution of certain opioids in New York for 2017 and 2018 and, effective July 1, 2019, imposed an excise tax on certain opioids.

DEA Investigation. In November 2011 and October 2012, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") requesting production of documents relating to its suspicious order monitoring program for controlled substances. The USAO for the Eastern District of Michigan investigated 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. DEA investigated 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. In July 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 and agreed, as part of a Memorandum of Agreement ("MOA"), to utilize all available transaction information to identify suspicious orders of any Mallinckrodt controlled substance product and to report to the DEA when it concludes that chargeback data or other information indicates that a downstream registrant poses a risk of diversion, among other things. The MOA remained in effect until July 10, 2020, but the Company is continuing to utilize all available transaction information to identify suspicious orders for reporting to the DEA beyond that date.

Medicaid Lawsuit. In May 2019, the Company filed a lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the "District Court") against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and CMS (collectively, the "Agency"). The dispute involves the base date AMP under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program for Mallinckrodt's Acthar Gel. A drug's "base date AMP" is used to calculate the Medicaid rebate amount payable by the drug's manufacturer to state Medicaid agencies when the drug is prescribed to Medicaid beneficiaries. At issue in the lawsuit is whether the FDA's 2010 approval of a new drug application for use of Acthar Gel in treating infantile spasms rendered Acthar Gel eligible for a new base date AMP, as indicated by CMS' written communications in 2012. In May 2019, CMS indicated that if the Company failed to revert to use of the original base date AMP in its calculation of Acthar Gel Medicaid rebates, CMS would identify the Company as being out of compliance with its Medicaid Drug Rebate Program reporting requirements, among other potential actions, triggering certain negative consequences. As such, the Company filed a lawsuit alleging (i) that CMS has violated the Medicaid drug rebate statute, (ii) that CMS has violated its own regulations defining "single source drug," (iii) that CMS has failed to adequately explain its change in position based on two letters that CMS sent Questcor in 2012 regarding the base date AMP for Acthar Gel, (iv) that CMS failed to give the Company fair notice of its latest position, and (v) that CMS should be prohibited from applying its new position retrospectively. The District Court held a hearing regarding this matter in August 2019.

Appeal with the District Court. In response, the government agreed that CMS would not require the Company to change the Medicaid rebate calculation for Acthar Gel until June 14, 2020, to allow the District Court time to decide the Company’s reconsideration motion. The District Court denied the Company's motion for reconsideration on May 29, 2020. On June 2, 2020, the Company appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the "Court of Appeals") and filed an Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal and to Expedite Briefing and Argument. The Court of Appeals denied the Company's request for an injunction pending appeal on June 15, 2020. The Company appealed the District Court's decision to the Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on September 24, 2020.

As previously disclosed, the Company recorded an accrual of $640.2 million related to the retrospective liability (the "Acthar Gel Medicaid Retrospective Rebate") in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 25, 2020, of which $535.1 million and $105.1 million have been reflected as a component of net sales and operating expenses, respectively, in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations for the nine months ended September 25, 2020. The $105.1 million reflected as a component of operating expenses represents a pre-acquisition contingency related to the portion of the Acthar Gel Medicaid Retrospective Rebate that arose from sales of Acthar Gel prior to the Company’s acquisition of Questcor in August 2014.

On October 12, 2020, the Company announced a settlement in principle, which is conditioned upon the Company entering the Chapter 11 restructuring process, to resolve various Acthar Gel-related matters, including the Medicaid lawsuit, an associated FCA lawsuit and an FCA lawsuit relating to Acthar Gel’s previous owner’s interactions with an independent charitable foundation (the "Acthar Gel-Related Settlement"). The Company has agreed to pay $260.0 million over seven years and to reset Acthar Gel’s Medicaid rebate calculation as of July 1, 2020, such that state Medicaid programs will receive 100% rebates on Acthar Gel Medicaid sales, based on current Acthar Gel pricing. Additionally, upon execution of the settlement, the Company will dismiss its appeal, which is currently pending in the Court of Appeals. The Company expects that the Acthar Gel-Related Settlement – which would resolve the Medicaid lawsuit, the associated FCA lawsuit in Boston and an FCA lawsuit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to Acthar’s previous owner’s interactions with an independent charitable foundation – will be completed over the next several months, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval.

In March 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint under the federal FCA against the Company in which the DOJ and 28 states have intervened alleging that the Company had failed to pay the correct amount of rebates for its Acthar Gel product. Other related legal proceedings involving the Company, including the litigation described as the Medicaid Lawsuit, are discussed above. The Company disagrees with the government's characterization of the facts and applicable law. The Company moved to dismiss the DOJ's Complaint in Intervention in July 2020 and moved to dismiss the complaint of the intervening states in September 2020. As previously disclosed, in the event that the Company does not prevail in its Medicaid lawsuit the potential for damages in this matter could be up to approximately $1,280.0 million, after subtracting out potential restitution, related to the Acthar Gel Medicaid Retrospective Rebate. The Company has not recognized an accrual for this contingency in its financial results for the nine months ended September 25, 2020.

Questcor EDPA Qui Tam Litigation. 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 Gel. The investigation eventually expanded to include Questcor's provision of financial and other support to patients, including through charitable foundations and related matters. The Company cooperated with the investigation. In March 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed two qui tam actions involving the allegations under investigation by the USAO for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The DOJ intervened in both actions, which were later consolidated. In September 2019, the Company executed a settlement agreement with the DOJ for $15.4 million and finalized settlements with the three qui tam plaintiffs. These settlements were paid during the three months ended September 27, 2019 and resolve the portion of the investigation and litigation involving Questcor's promotional practices related to Acthar Gel. In June 2019, the DOJ filed its Complaint in Intervention in the litigation, alleging claims under the federal False Claim Act based on Questcor's relationship with and donations to an independent charitable patient co-pay

Amitiza Patent Litigation: Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. In October 2018, Sucampo AG, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sucampo Pharma LLC, all subsidiaries of the Company, and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Takeda Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. (collectively "Takeda," the exclusive licensee under the patents in litigation) filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (collectively "Sun") alleging that Sun infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,795,312, 8,026,393, 8,097,653, 8,338,639, 8,389,542, 8,748,481 and 8,779,187 following receipt of a September 2018 notice from Sun concerning its submission of an abbreviated new drug application ("ANDA") containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing generic of Amitiza. On June 4, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Sun was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing generic version of Amitiza in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after January 1, 2023, or earlier under certain circumstances.

INOmax® Patent Litigation: Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. (collectively "Praxair"). In February 2015, INO Therapeutics LLC and Ikaria, Inc., both 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 nitric oxide drug product delivery system. 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 its nitric oxide drug product delivery system. The infringement claims in the second suit were 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 added to the FDA Orange Book that was submitted by Praxair regarding its ANDA for its nitric oxide drug product delivery system.

Trial for the suit filed in February 2015 was held in March 2017 and a decision was rendered September 5, 2017 that ruled five patents invalid and six patents not infringed. The Company appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The oral arguments in the appeal occurred on February 6, 2019. Praxair received FDA approval of their ANDA for their Noxivent nitric oxide and clearance of their 510(k) for their NOxBOXi device on October 2, 2018. The appeal decision, issued on August 27, 2019, substantively affirmed the U.S. District Court decision with respect to the invalidity of the heart failure (HF) patents and the non-infringement of the delivery system infrared (DSIR) patents. The Company filed a petition for en banc review at the Federal Circuit on September 26, 2019, which the Federal Circuit denied on November 19, 2019. The Company filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court on March 6, 2020 and the petition was denied on April 6, 2020. The adverse final outcome in the appeal of the Praxair litigation decision is expected to result in the broader-scale launch of a competitive nitric oxide product before the expiration of the last of the listed patents on May 3, 2036 (November 3, 2036 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.

Ofirmev Patent Litigation: Baxter Healthcare Corporation. In March 2020, MHP and Mallinckrodt Hospital Products IP Limited, both subsidiaries of the Company, and New Pharmatop LP, the current owner of the U.S. patents licensed exclusively by the Company, filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Baxter Healthcare Corporation ("BHC") alleging that BHC infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,992,218, U.S. Patent No. 9,399,012, U.S. Patent No. 9,610,265, U.S. Patent No. 9,987,238 and U.S. Patent No. 10,383,834 following receipt of a February 2020 notice from Baxter concerning its submission of an ANDA, containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Ofirmev. On April 23, 2020, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which BHC was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing intravenous acetaminophen product in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances.

Health Care Service Corporation Litigation. In February 2020, Health Care Service Corporation ("HCSC") filed a non-class complaint against the Company in California state court alleging improper pricing and distribution of Acthar Gel, in violation of the New Jersey RICO statute and various states’ antitrust laws. HCSC also brings claims against the Company for conspiracy to violate the New Jersey RICO statute, fraud, unlawful restraint of trade, unfair and deceptive trade practices, insurance fraud, tortious interference with contract and unjust enrichment. The case, which is proceeding as Health Care Service Corp. v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, et al., alleges similar facts as those alleged in the Humana matter below. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and moved to dismiss the complaint in June 2020. As this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

City of Marietta Litigation. In February 2020, the City of Marietta, Georgia filed a putative civil class action complaint against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia relating to the price of Acthar Gel. The complaint, which pleads one claim for unjust enrichment, purports to be brought on behalf of third-party payers and their beneficiaries as well as people without insurance in the U.S. and its Territories who paid for Acthar Gel from four years prior to the filing of the complaint until the date of trial. The case is proceeding as City of Marietta v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC. Marietta alleges that it has paid $2.0 million to cover the cost of an Acthar Gel prescription of an employee and that the Company has been unjustly enriched as a result. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and has moved to dismiss the complaint. The Company’s motion to dismiss remains pending. On October 16, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases.

Local 322. In November 2019, the United Association of Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 322 of Southern New Jersey ("Local 322") filed a putative class action complaint against the Company and other defendants in New Jersey state court on behalf of New Jersey and third party payers for alleged deceptive marketing and anti-competitive conduct related to the sale and distribution of Acthar Gel. The complaint asserts claims under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, the New Jersey Antitrust Act, the New Jersey RICO statute, negligent misrepresentation, conspiracy/aiding and abetting and unjust enrichment. The proposed class is defined as "All third-party payors and their beneficiaries (1) who are current citizens and residents of the State of New Jersey, and (2) who, for purposes other than resale, purchased or paid for Acthar Gel from August 27, 2007 through the present." In January 2020, after removing the complaint to federal court in New Jersey, the Company moved to dismiss or stay the case. On August 18, 2020 the court dismissed all claims against the Company other than Local 322's antitrust claim relating to the former owner of Acthar Gel's acquisition of Synacthen. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter, and moved to dismiss the complaint in June 2020. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. On October 14, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Brandhorst). In September 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company's stock filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Company, as nominal defendant, as well as its CEO Mark Trudeau, its former CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, its Executive Vice President Hugh O'Neill, and the following members of the Board of Directors: Angus Russell, David Carlucci, J. Martin Carroll, David Norton, JoAnn Reed and Kneeland Youngblood (collectively with Trudeau, Harbaugh and O'Neill, the "Brandhorst Defendants"). The lawsuit is captioned Lynn Brandhorst, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Mallinckrodt PLC v. Mark Trudeau et al. and relies on the allegations from the putative class action securities litigation that was filed against the Company and certain of its officers in January 2017, captioned Patricia A. Shenk v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. described further below. The complaint asserts claims for contribution, breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, and gross mismanagement, and is premised on allegations that the Brandhorst Defendants caused the Company to make the allegedly false or misleading statements at issue in the Shenk class action lawsuit. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and corporate governance reforms. On November 20, 2019, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of the Shenk lawsuit below. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. As to the Company, this litigation is subject to the automatic stay under §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Company has requested an order from the Bankruptcy Court enjoining proceedings against the individual named defendant.

Humana Litigation. In August 2019, Humana Inc. filed a lawsuit against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws; racketeering violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); conspiracy to violate RICO under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); violations of state unfair competition, consumer fraud and deceptive trade practice laws; state insurance fraud; tortious interference with contract; and unjust enrichment related to the pricing of Acthar Gel. Humana alleges that it paid more than $700.0 million for Acthar Gel and seeks undisclosed damages from 2011 through present. The case alleges similar facts as those alleged in the MSP and Rockford matters below, and includes references to allegations at issue in a pending qui tam action against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (see Questcor EDPA Qui Tam Litigation above). The case is proceeding as Humana Inc. v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC. In March 2020, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss Humana's claims. The court dismissed Humana's antitrust and tortious

interference claims with leave to amend. The court denied the Company's motion to dismiss Humana's RICO and other fraud-based claims. Humana filed an amended complaint in May 2020, which the Company has moved to dismiss. In August 2020, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Company's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The court dismissed with prejudice Humana's claims under most state antitrust laws dismissed with prejudice Humana's tortious interference claims. The court ruled that Humana's federal antitrust and federal and state-law analog RICO claims may proceed. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Putative Class Action Litigation - Steamfitters Local Union No. 420. In July 2019, Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, proceeding as Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 v. Mallinckrodt ARD, LLC, et al. The complaint makes similar allegations as those alleged in related state and federal actions that were filed by the same plaintiff's law firm in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland (now dismissed; see WCBE below), and includes references to allegations at issue in a pending qui tam actions against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (see Questcor Subpoena above). The complaint alleges RICO violations under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); conspiracy to violate RICO under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c); violations of the Pennsylvania (and other states) Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection laws; negligent misrepresentation; aiding and abetting/conspiracy; and unjust enrichment. The complaint also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. In December 2019, the court denied the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation (Strougo). In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its CFO Bryan M. Reasons, its former Interim CFO George A. Kegler and its former CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Barbara Strougo v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Mallinckrodt's securities between February 28, 2018 and July 16, 2019. The lawsuit generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder related to the Company's clinical study designed to assess the efficacy and safety of its Acthar Gel in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages in an unspecified amount. A lead plaintiff was designated by the court on June 25, 2020, and on July 30, 2020, the court approved the transfer of the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On August 10, 2020, an amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff alleging an expended putative class period of May 3, 2016 through March 18, 2020 against the Company and Mark C. Trudeau, Bryan M. Reasons, George A. Kegler and Matthew K. Harbaugh, as well as newly named defendants Kathleen A. Schaefer, Angus C. Russell, Melvin D. Booth, JoAnn A. Reed, Paul R. Carter, and Mark J. Casey (collectively with Trudeau, Reasons, Kegler and Harbaugh, the "Strougo Defendants"). The amended complaint claims that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed disclose that: (i) the CMS had informed the Company that it was using the wrong base date AMP for calculating the Medicaid rebate the Company owed CMS for Acthar Gel each quarter since 2014; (ii) the Company’s reported net income was improperly inflated in violation of GAAP; (iii) the Company’s contingent liabilities associated with the rebates owed to CMS for Acthar Gel were misrepresented; (iv) the Company’s fiscal year 2019 guidance for Acthar Gel net sales was false; (v) the Company failed to disclose material information regarding the cases captioned Landolt v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 1:18-cv-11931-PBS (D. Mass.) (Landolt) and U.S. ex rel. Strunck v. Mallinckrodt ARD LLC, No. 2:12-cv-0175-BMS (E.D. Pa.) (Strunck), or the related investigation by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and (vi) the Company failed to disclose that the clinical trials for Acthar Gel were purportedly initiated in order to make it appear that alternative revenue opportunities for Acthar Gel existed and thus offset the expected 10% decline in net sales as a result of the rebates the Company now had to pay. On October 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. As to the Company, this litigation is subject to the automatic stay under §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Company has requested an order from the Bankruptcy Court enjoining proceedings against the individual named defendants.

Acument Global. In May 2019, Acument Global Technologies, Inc. ("Acument"), filed a non-class complaint against the Company and other defendants in Tennessee state court alleging violations of Tennessee Consumer Protection laws, unjust enrichment, fraud and conspiracy to defraud. The case alleges similar facts as those alleged in the MSP and Rockford matters below, and is captioned Acument Global Technologies, Inc., v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., et al. In February 2020, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part the Company’s motion to dismiss. While the court dismissed Acument’s fraud-based claims and its claim under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, the court ruled that the antitrust and unjust enrichment claims may proceed. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

Local 542. In May 2018, the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 542 filed a non-class complaint against the Company and other defendants in Pennsylvania state court alleging improper pricing and distribution of Acthar Gel, in violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law, aiding and abetting, unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation. The case alleges similar facts as the MSP and Rockford matters below, and is captioned Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 542 v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., et al. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint in August 2018, the Company's objections to which were denied by the court. Although the court temporarily stayed proceedings in January 2020, the court lifted the stay in February 2020. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

Putative Class Action Litigation (MSP). In October 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Pursuant to a motion filed by the defendants, the case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in January 2018, and is currently proceeding as MSP Recovery Claims, Series II, LLC, et al. v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., et al. The Company filed a motion to dismiss in February 2018, which was granted in January 2019 with leave to amend. MSP filed the operative First Amended Class Action Complaint on April 10, 2019, in which it asserts claims under federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws and names additional defendants. The complaint alleged that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen® Depot ("Synacthen") and reaching anti-competitive agreements with the other defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive distribution network. The complaint purported to be brought on behalf of all third-party payers, or their assignees, in the U.S. and its territories, who have, as indirect purchasers, in whole or in part, paid for, provided reimbursement for, and/or possess the recovery rights to reimbursement for the indirect purchase of Acthar Gel from August 1, 2007 to present. In March 2020, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. MSP filed an amended complaint on July 3, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan (ESPP) Securities Litigation. In July 2017, a purported purchaser of Mallinckrodt stock through Mallinckrodt's ESPPs, filed a derivative and class action lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the Eastern District of Missouri, captioned Solomon v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., against the Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its former CFO Matthew K. Harbaugh, its Controller Kathleen A. Schaefer, and current and former directors of the Company (collectively, the "Solomon Defendants"). On September 6, 2017, plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its complaint in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri and refiled virtually the same complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 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, through 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 Shenk class action lawsuit below. Stipulated co-lead plaintiffs were approved by the court on March 1, 2018. Co-lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 4, 2018 having a class period of July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017. On July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of the Shenk class action lawsuit below. The defendants intends to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Company has requested an order from the Bankruptcy Court enjoining proceedings against the individual named defendants.

Putative Class Action Litigation (Rockford). In April 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and United BioSource Corporation 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 was subsequently amended to, among other things, include an additional named plaintiff and additional defendants. As amended, the complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all self-funded entities in the U.S. and its Territories, excluding any Medicare Advantage Organizations, related entities and certain others, that paid for Acthar Gel from August 2007 to the present. Plaintiff alleges violations of federal antitrust and RICO laws, as well as various state law claims in connection with the distribution and sale of Acthar Gel. In January 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, which was granted in part in January 2019. The court dismissed one of two named plaintiffs and all claims with the exception of Plaintiff's federal and state antitrust claims. The remaining allegation in the case is that the Company engaged in anti-competitive acts to artificially raise and maintain the price of Acthar Gel. To this end, Plaintiff alleges that the Company unlawfully maintained a monopoly in a purported ACTH product market by acquiring the U.S. rights to Synacthen and conspired with the other named defendants by selling Acthar Gel through an exclusive distributor. The Company intends to continue defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit. On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation (Shenk). In January 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 Gel 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 Gel revenues, and the exposure of Acthar Gel 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, its CEO and former 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. Lead plaintiff was designated by the court on March 9, 2018. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on May 18, 2018, alleging a class period from July 14, 2014 to November 6, 2017, the Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice President, Hugh O'Neill, as defendants, and containing similar claims, but further alleging misstatements regarding payer reimbursement restrictions for Acthar Gel. On August 30, 2018, the lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the claims against Mr. O'Neill without prejudice. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint which was granted in part, and denied in part by the court on July 30, 2019. On September 1, 2020, the case deadlines were suspended to allow the parties to pursue a mediation. The defendants intends to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. On October 13, 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the Company has requested an order from the Bankruptcy Court enjoining proceedings against the individual named defendants.

Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust MDL. In August 2016, a multidistrict litigation was established in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to allegations of antitrust violations with respect to generic pharmaceutical pricing (the "Generic Pricing MDL"). Plaintiffs in the Generic Pricing MDL, captioned In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, allege a conspiracy of price-fixing and customer allocation among generic drug manufacturers beginning in or around July 2009. Since its establishment, the Generic Pricing MDL has expanded to encompass dozens of pharmaceutical companies and more than 100 generic pharmaceutical drugs. The Company was recently named in three cases associated with this litigation. There was a status conference on September 10, 2020, at which time the court stated that any new or amended complaints are due by December 15, 2020. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

State Attorneys General Litigation. In June 2020, the Company, along with more than 20 other pharmaceutical manufacturers, was named as a defendant in a lawsuit brought by Attorneys General for 51 States, Territories, and the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleges that manufacturers of generic drugs conspired to fix prices for certain generic drugs by communicating in advance of price increases and agreeing to certain market share allocations amongst competitors to thwart competition. The lawsuit alleges that prices for the generic drugs at issue were inflated as a result of the alleged conspiracies, causing harm to the U.S. healthcare system. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims. In July 2020, this lawsuit was consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. The Company disagrees with the Attorneys Generals’ characterization of the facts and applicable law. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

Rite Aid Litigation. In July 2020, a direct action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania named the Company and several other pharmaceutical manufacturers as new defendants in an action captioned Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. et al. The lawsuit purports to be brought by entities that directly purchased generic drugs from defendants or a co-conspirator. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and is premised on facts similar to those alleged in the State Attorneys General Litigation. The Company expects this lawsuit to be consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

Suffolk v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. et al. The lawsuit purports to be brought by Suffolk County, New York, which directly and indirectly purchased generic drugs from defendants or a co-conspirator. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Donnelly Act, New York General Business Law § 340, and New York Social Services Law § 145-b, and is premised on facts similar to those alleged in the State Attorneys General Litigation. This lawsuit has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

J M Smith Litigation. In September 2020, a direct action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania named the Company and several other pharmaceutical manufacturers as new defendants in an action captioned J M Smith Corporation v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. et al. The lawsuit purports to be brought by entities that directly purchased generic drugs from defendants or a co-conspirator. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, and is premised on facts similar to those alleged in the State Attorneys General Litigation. This lawsuit has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

Self-Insured Schools Litigation. In August 2020, a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York named the Company and several other pharmaceutical manufacturers as new defendants in an action captioned Self-Insured Schools of California v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Plc et al. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased Xyrem (sodium oxybate). The complaint alleges that Jazz Pharmaceuticals delayed generic competition by the Company and others by providing substantial consideration to the Company and others to delay market entry for sodium oxybate, causing consumers to pay supracompetitive prices for Xyrem and its generic bioequivalent products. The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, and various state antitrust laws and, state consumer protection statutes, and state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with this lawsuit.

Hollman Litigation. In September 2020, a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California named the Company and several other pharmaceutical manufacturers as new defendants in an action captioned Ruth Hollman v. Jazz Pharmaceuticals Plc et al. The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a purported class of individuals and entities that indirectly purchased Xyrem (sodium oxybate). The complaint alleges that Jazz Pharmaceuticals delayed generic competition by the Company and others by providing substantial consideration to the Company and others to delay market entry for sodium oxybate, causing consumers to pay supracompetitive prices for Xyrem and its generic bioequivalent products. The complaint seeks monetary damages and declaratory and injunctive relief for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, and various state antitrust laws, state consumer protection statutes, and state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive practices. On November 3, 2020, the plaintiff dismissed the case against the Company and certain other defendants without prejudice. The lawsuit remains pending against several other defendants.

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 September 25, 2020, it was probable that it would incur remediation costs in the range of $37.8 million to $86.9 million. The Company also concluded that, as of September 25, 2020, the best estimate within this range was $61.3 million, of which $1.3 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the remainder was included in environmental liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of September 25, 2020. 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.

Mallinckrodt Veterinary, Inc., Millsboro, Delaware. The Company previously operated a facility 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 Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). The companies have entered into three Administrative Orders on Consent ("AOC(s)") 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. In January 2017, the EPA issued its Action Memorandum regarding the EE/CA. In March 2020, the EPA approved the Final Action Report documenting the remedial construction activities completed in accordance with Paragraph 8.12 of AOC 3 for Removal Response Action. The report recommended decommissioning the Directed Groundwater Recirculation system and commencing Long Term Monitoring. Upon receipt of the EPA approved Final Action Report, 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.

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 defend these lawsuits. When appropriate, the Company settles claims; however, amounts paid to settle and defend all asbestos claims have been immaterial. As of September 25, 2020, there were approximately 11,800 asbestos-related cases pending against the Company.

The Company estimates pending asbestos claims, 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 resolution 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.

As a result of historical internal installment sales, the Company has reported IRC §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. 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 $28.2 million and $47.4 million as of September 25, 2020 and December 27, 2019, respectively. The decrease of $19.2 million was recognized as a benefit to interest expense during the nine months ended September 25, 2020, due to lapses of certain statute of limitations. Further 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 operations.

As further discussed in Note 4, in August 2020, a settlement was reached with the IRS related to the audit of MHP's (formerly known as Cadence) tax year ended September 26, 2014. The settlement increased the transfer price of the Transferred IP, resulting in an increase to taxable income of $356.5 million and underpayment interest of $11.8 million. The increase to taxable income was satisfied through a noncash offset against the Company’s U.S. Federal NOLs and interest expense for the tax year ended September 25, 2020, while the underpayment interest was satisfied through a cash payment of $11.8 million. The Company was adequately reserved for this item; therefore there were no impacts to the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended September 25, 2020.