On October 12, the Company announced that Mallinckrodt plc and certain of its subsidiaries voluntarily initiated the Chapter 11 Cases under the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court. As a result of initiating the Chapter 11 Cases, all litigation and proceedings against the Company have been automatically stayed, subject to certain limited exceptions. In addition, the Bankruptcy Court issued orders enjoining certain litigation against the Company and various individuals named in certain of the litigation described below that might otherwise be subject to such an exception. For further information about the Chapter 11 Cases, refer to Note 2.

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 March 10, 2021, the cases the Company is aware of include, but are not limited to, approximately 2,614 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 124 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 March 10, 2021, 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. 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 ("CEO"), Mark C. Trudeau, asserting similar claims relating to the marketing and distribution of prescription opioid medications. Rhode Island has voluntarily agreed to a stay of the lawsuit against Mr. Trudeau.

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.

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, product liability, consumer fraud, unfair or deceptive trade practices, false advertising, insurance fraud, unjust enrichment, negligence, 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 by 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"). Furthermore, under the terms of the Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement, subject to court approval and other conditions, it was contemplated that, the Company would (1) make cash payments of $1,600.0 million in structured payments over eight years, beginning upon the Specialty Generics Subsidiaries’ emergence from the completed Chapter 11 case, the substantial majority of which would be expected to be contributed to the Opioid Claimant Trust and (2) issue warrants with an eight year term to the Opioid Claimant Trust exercisable at a strike price of $3.15 per share to purchase the Company’s ordinary shares that would represent approximately 19.99% of the Company's fully diluted outstanding shares, including after giving effect to the exercise of the warrants (the “Settlement Warrants”).

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 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. On December 15, 2020, the Company received a subpoena from the Western District of Virginia for documents related to services provided by an outside consulting firm. 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.

On June 1, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against Mallinckrodt plc, Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, the Canadian Ministry of Health ("Province") and the College of Pharmacists of British Columbia ("College") in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, captioned Laura Shaver v. Mallinckrodt Canada ULC, et al., No. VLC-S-S-205793. The action purports to be brought on 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. Together with the other plaintiffs, we filed a petition for rehearing en banc to challenge the panel's decision, which was denied on December 18, 2020. On February 12, 2021, the Second Circuit granted the parties' request to stay the mandate. The parties plan to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. 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.

Medicaid Lawsuit. In May 2019, CMS issued a final decision directing the Company to revert to the original base date AMP used to calculate Medicaid drug rebates for Acthar Gel despite CMS having given the previous owner of the product, Questcor, written authorization in 2012 to reset the base date AMP. Upon receipt of CMS’s final decision, the Company filed suit in the D.C. District Court against the Agency under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking to have the decision declared unlawful and set aside. In March 2020, the Company received an adverse decision from the D.C. District Court. The Company immediately sought reconsideration by the D.C. District Court, which was denied. The Company then appealed the D.C. District Court’s decision to the D.C. Circuit. In June 2020, while its appeal remained pending, the Company was required to revert to the original base date AMP for Acthar in the government’s price reporting system.

As a result of this contingency, the Company incurred a retrospective one-time charge of $641.1 million (the "Acthar Gel Medicaid Retrospective Rebate"), of which $536.0 million and $105.1 million have been reflected as a component of net sales and operating expenses, respectively, in the consolidated statement of operations for fiscal 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. As of December 25, 2020, $638.9 million related to the Medicaid lawsuit was recorded within LSTC.

The D.C. Circuit heard argument on the merits of the Company's appeal in September 2020, prior to the Company's filing of the Chapter 11 Cases on October 12, 2020. At the joint request of the parties, the D.C. Circuit has agreed to hold the case in abeyance pending completion of the Proposed Acthar Gel-Related Settlement, which was conditioned upon the Company entering the Chapter 11 restructuring process. Pursuant to the Proposed 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 Proposed Acthar Gel-Related Settlement, the Company will dismiss its D.C. Circuit appeal. The Company expects that the Proposed Acthar Gel-Related Settlement will be completed over the next several months, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval.

Questcor EDPA Qui Tam Litigation. In September 2012, Questcor received a subpoena from the USAO for the EDPA 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 EDPA unsealed two qui tam actions involving the allegations under investigation by the USAO for the EDPA. 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.

MNK 2011 Inc. (formerly known as Mallinckrodt Inc.) v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration and United States of America. In November 2014, the FDA reclassified the Company's Methylphenidate ER in the Orange Book: Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence ("the Orange Book"). In November 2014, the Company filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Greenbelt Division against the FDA and the U.S. (the "MD Complaint") for judicial review of the FDA's reclassification. In July 2015, the court granted the FDA's motion to dismiss with respect to three of the five counts in the MD Complaint and granted summary judgment in favor of the FDA with respect to the two remaining counts (the “MD Order”). 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued an order placing the Company's appeal of the MD Order in abeyance pending the outcome of the withdrawal proceedings. The parties exchanged documents and in April 2018, the Company filed its submission in support of its position in the withdrawal proceedings. A potential outcome of the withdrawal proceedings is that the Company's Methylphenidate ER products may lose their FDA approval and have to be withdrawn from the market.

Therakos® Subpoena. In March 2014, the USAO for the EDPA requested the production of documents related to an investigation of the U.S. promotion of Therakos® photopheresis ("Therakos") 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 EDPA sent Therakos a subsequent request for documents related to the investigation and has since made certain related requests. The Company responded to these requests.

Branded Products: The Company will continue to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to its Branded products to prevent the marketing of infringing generic or competing products prior to the expiration of patents covering those products, which, if unsuccessful, could adversely affect the Company's ability to successfully maximize the value of individual Branded products and have an adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. In the case of litigation filed against potential generic or competing products to Company’s Branded products, those litigation matters can either be settled or the litigation pursued through a trial and any potential appeals of the lower court decision.

Amitiza Patent Litigation: 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) initiated litigation against six parties that submitted ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications seeking to launch a generic version of Company’s Amitiza product. Each of those litigation matters were subsequently settled by entering into non-exclusive license agreements that granted the right to market a competing generic version of Amitiza in the U.S. on or after a specified entry date, or earlier under certain circumstances. One party (Par Pharmaceutical) entered into a settlement agreement that granted an entry date on or after January 1, 2021, or earlier under certain circumstances. Par has announced the launch of an authorized generic version of Company’s Amitiza product. The other five parties (Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Teva Pharmaceuticals, Sun Pharmaceutical and Zydus Pharmaceuticals) entered into settlement agreements that granted each party an entry date on or after January 1, 2023, or earlier under certain circumstances. The Company intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to Amitiza against any additional parties that may seek to market a generic version of Company’s Amitiza product.

Ofirmev Patent Litigation: The Company initiated litigation against eleven parties that submitted ANDA or 505(b)(2) NDA applications with Paragraph IV certifications seeking to launch a generic or competing version of Company’s Ofirmev product. One party (Exela) was prohibited from launching a generic of Ofirmev as the Company obtained a decision from the District Court that Exela infringed certain patents covering Ofirmev. That decision was affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (“Federal Circuit”). If Exela were to pursue their ANDA after expiration of the infringed patent expiring December 6, 2021 (including PED exclusivity) they would still be subject to potential litigation regarding the other Ofirmev patents listed in the Orange Book. Each of the other ten litigation matters were settled by entering into non-exclusive license agreements that granted each party the right to market a competing version of Ofirmev in the U.S. on or after December 6, 2020, or earlier under certain circumstances. The parties that entered settlement agreements are Paddock Laboratories (now Custopharm), Sandoz, Wockhardt, Fresenius Kabi, Mylan, InnoPharma/West-Ward Pharmaceuticals, Aurobindo, B. Braun Medical, Altan Pharma and Baxter Healthcare. Paddock, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Mylan, Aurobindo and B. Braun Medical have obtained FDA approval and Custopharm, Sandoz, Fresenius Kabi, Mylan, Aurobindo and B. Braun Medical have publicly announced that they have launched (or have plans to launch) their competing products.

INOmax Patent Litigation: The Company initiated litigation against Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. (collectively “Praxair”) following receipt of a notice from Praxair concerning its submission of an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a nitric oxide drug product. Praxair also made a 510(k) regulatory submission for a nitric oxide delivery system. The District Court issued a decision ruling that five of the Company’s patents were invalid and six were not infringed by Praxair. The Company appealed that decision to the Federal Circuit but the District Court decision was substantively affirmed with respect to invalidity and non-infringement. The Company’s pursuit of en banc review at the Federal Circuit and review by the U.S. Supreme Court were unsuccessful. 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 adverse final outcome in the appeal of the Praxair litigation resulted in Praxair’s 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. The Company continues to develop and pursue patent protection of next generation nitric oxide delivery systems and additional uses of nitric oxide. The Company further intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights relating to its nitric oxide products against any additional parties that may seek to market a generic version of Company’s INOmax product and/or next generation delivery systems.

Generic Products: The Company continues to pursue development of a portfolio of generic products, some of which require submission of a Paragraph IV certification against patents listed in the FDA Orange Book for the Branded product asserting that the Company’s proposed generic product does not infringe and/or the Orange Book patent(s) are invalid and/or unenforceable. In the case of litigation filed against Company for such potential generic products, those litigation matters can either be settled or the litigation pursued through a trial and any potential appeals of the lower court decision in order to successfully launch those generic products in the future.

Shire Development LLC, Shire LLC and Shire US, Inc. v. SpecGx LLC. In May 2018, Shire Development LLC, Shire LLC and Shire US, Inc. (collectively “Shire”) initiated litigation against the Company alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,913,768, 8,846,100, and 9,173,857 following receipt of an April 2018 notice from the Company concerning its submission of an ANDA, containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Mydayis. On January 28, 2019, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which the Company was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing generic version of Mydayis in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after May 10, 2023 (or November 10, 2023 if any pediatric exclusivity is granted by the FDA with respect to the Mydayis product), or earlier under certain circumstances.

Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland v. Mallinckrodt PLC, Mallinckrodt Inc. and Mallinckrodt LLC. In January 2018, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Jazz Pharmaceuticals Ireland (collectively, "Jazz") initiated litigation against the Company alleging that the Company infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 7,668,730, 7,765,106, 7,765,107, 7,895,059, 8,457,988, 8,589,182, 8,731,963, 8,772,306, 9,050,302, and 9,486,426 following receipt of a November 2017 notice from the Company concerning its submission of an ANDA, containing a Paragraph IV patent certification with the FDA for a competing version of Xyrem. On June 4, 2018, the parties entered into a settlement agreement under which Company was granted the non-exclusive right to market a competing sodium oxybate product in the U.S. under its ANDA on or after December 31, 2025, or earlier under certain circumstances.

Shareholder Litigation (HealthCor). In October 2020, four purported shareholders of the Company’s stock filed a complaint in the D.C. District Court against the Company, its CEO Mark C. Trudeau and its former Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") Matthew K. Harbaugh. The lawsuit, captioned HealthCor Offshore Master Fund, L.P., et al. v. Mallinckrodt plc, et al., asserts claims for false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation arising from substantially similar allegations as those contained in the Shenk class action lawsuit. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. The defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. 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. 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.

Health Care Service Corporation Litigation. In February 2020, Health Care Service Corp. ("HCSC") filed a non-class complaint against the Company in California state court alleging improper pricing, marketing and distribution of Acthar Gel, and challenging the acquisition of rights to Synacthen® Depot ("Synacthen") by the Company's predecessor-in-interest. The complaint included claims for violation of the New Jersey RICO statute and various states’ antitrust laws. It also included claims 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 the Company moved to dismiss the complaint in June 2020. In August 2020, the court dismissed the antitrust and tortious interference claims without prejudice, but held that HCSC could proceed to discovery on its remaining counts. The Company disagrees with the court's decision and contests liability. The Company was preparing to move to dismiss an amended complaint when the Company filed the Chapter 11 Cases. In January 2021, the Company removed this case to federal court and moved for transfer to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. HCSC has moved to remand the case back to state court. 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.

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 was pending when the Company filed the Chapter 11 Cases. On October 16, 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the 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 payers 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 Company's predecessor-in-interest's acquisition of Synacthen. The Company disagrees with the court's decision and contests liability. 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. In October 2020, the court ordered the case administratively closed in light of the Company's Chapter 11 Cases. In January 2021, the Company moved to transfer this case to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending.

Shareholder Derivative Litigation (Brandhorst). In September 2019, a purported shareholder of the Company's stock filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the D.C. District Court against the Company, as nominal defendant, as well as its CEO, its former CFO, 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 Brandhorst Defendants intend to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. As to the Company, this litigation is subject to the automatic stay under §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined the proceedings against the Brandhorst Defendants.

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; RICO 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 and marketing of Acthar Gel and the acquisition of Synacthen by the Company's predecessor-in-interest. 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 EDPA (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 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 to the extent predicated on conduct before 2014 and Humana's tortious interference claims. The court ruled that Humana's federal antitrust, federal RICO, state insurance fraud and unjust enrichment claims may proceed. The Company disagrees with the court's decision and contest liability. 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. In September 2020, the Company answered the remaining allegations and claims of the operative complaint. In October 2020, the court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In January 2021, the Company moved to transfer this case to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Humana opposes transfer.

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 EDPA, 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 New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Maryland (now dismissed; see WCBE below), and includes references to allegations at issue in a qui tam action that was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA (see Questcor EDPA Quit Tam Litigation 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 disagrees with the court's decision and contests liability. 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. In January 2021, the Company moved to transfer this case to the District of Delaware where the Company's Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Steamfitters Local Union No. 420 opposes transfer.

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 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 on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined proceedings against the Strougo Defendants. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Bankruptcy Court action to the U.S. District Court in Delaware through a motion for leave to appeal. The Company filed its opposition to this motion on December 28, 2020.

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 discussed 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 disagrees with the court's decision and contests liability. 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. In January 2021, the Company removed this case to federal court and moved for transfer to the District of Delaware where the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Acument has moved to remand the case back to state court.

Washington County Board of Education ("WCBE"). In May 2019, WCBE filed a non-class complaint against the Company and other defendants in Maryland state court alleging violations of Maryland Consumer Protection Act, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, unjust enrichment and conspiracy to defraud. The case, which was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in June 2019, alleges similar facts as those alleged in the MSP and Rockford matters discussed below, and was captioned Washington County Board of Education v. Mallinckrodt ARD Inc., et al. On January 4, 2020, the District Court of Maryland dismissed the complaint. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal in the District Court of Maryland, which the Company moved to strike. The District Court of Maryland granted the Company's motion to strike, and the plaintiff appealed that order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in June 2020. The Fourth Circuit dismissed plaintiff's appeal in September 2020.

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 discussed 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. The Company disagrees with the court's decision and contest liability. 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. In January 2021, the Company removed this case to federal court and moved for transfer to the District of Delaware where the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Local 542 has moved to remand the case back to the state court. On March 10, 2021, the federal court in Pennsylvania granted the Company's motion to transfer the case to the District of Delaware and denied without prejudice Local 542's motion to remand the case to state court.

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 its predecessor in interest's acquisition of the U.S. rights to 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 and moved to dismiss the second amended complaint in August 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 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. In January 2021, the Company moved for transfer to the District of Delaware where the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases are pending. MSP opposes transfer.

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, its former CFO, 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 D.C. District Court. 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. 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. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. On July 6, 2018, this matter was stayed by agreement of the parties pending resolution of the Shenk class action lawsuit. The defendants intends to vigorously defend themselves in this matter. On October 13, 2020, the trial 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 its predecessor-in-interest's acquisition of 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 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. In January 2021, the Company moved for transfer to the District of Delaware where the Company’s Chapter 11 Cases are pending. Rockford opposes transfer.

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation (Shenk). In January 2017, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and its CEO in the D.C. District Court, 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 D.C. District Court. 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 D.C. District Court. 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 its former CFO in the D.C. District Court. 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, against the Company, its CEO, its former CFO, and Executive Vice President, Hugh O'Neill, as defendants (collectively, the "Shenk Defendants"), and containing similar claims, but further alleging misstatements regarding payer reimbursement restrictions for Acthar Gel. The consolidated complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. 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 mediation. On October 13, 2020, the trial court entered an order acknowledging the automatic stay of this litigation as to the Company pursuant to §362 of the Bankruptcy Code, and on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined the proceedings against the individual named defendants. On December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Company's motion pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §105 seeking to enjoin lawsuits or administrative proceedings brought by various parties, with an exception for the Shenk lawsuit solely to the extent necessary to allow the previously scheduled mediation to proceed to its conclusion and to potentially settle the Shenk lawsuit, subject to Bankruptcy Court approval. On December 7, 2020 and January 12, 2021, the parties participated in mediation sessions, which resulted in an agreement in principle to settle the Shenk lawsuit. The settlement will be funded solely from the proceeds of the remaining Shenk Defendant's applicable directors and officers liability insurance policies and is subject to approval of the D.C. District Court and the Bankruptcy Court, among other terms and conditions.

Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust MDL. In August 2016, a multidistrict litigation was established in the EDPA 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 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.

1199SEIU National Benefit Fund Litigation. In December 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and more than thirty other pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA, captioned 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al. The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of all persons and entities that indirectly purchased, paid, or provided reimbursement for the purchase of defendants' generic drugs, other than for resale, from May 2009 to the present. The lawsuit generally alleges that defendants conspired to allocate customers and fix prices for generic pharmaceutical drugs beginning in May 2009. The complaint seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief based on violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act and various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims. This lawsuit has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. An amended complaint was filed on January 7, 2021.

César Castillo, Inc., Litigation. In February 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and more than thirty other pharmaceutical manufacturers in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA, captioned César Castillo, Inc., et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al. The lawsuit purports to be brought on behalf of all persons or entities that directly purchased certain generic drugs from defendants or from one of defendants' direct customers-where the direct customer is alleged to be a completely involved co-conspirator-between July 1, 2009, and the present. The complaint has similar allegations as the 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund litigation and seeks damages for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act. This lawsuit has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL.

The Kroger Co. Litigation. In February 2020, a proposed amended complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA named the Company and several other pharmaceutical manufacturers as new defendants in an action captioned The Kroger Co., et al. v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc. et al. The lawsuit is brought by several entities that purportedly purchased generic drugs directly from defendants. The proposed amended 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 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund and César Castillo litigations. This lawsuit has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL. A revised motion for leave to file a proposed amended complaint was filed in September 2020 and remains pending.

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

Rite Aid Litigation. In July 2020, a direct action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA 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. This lawsuit has been consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL.

Suffolk County, N.Y. Litigation. In August 2020, a direct action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York named the Company and several other pharmaceutical manufacturers as new defendants in an action captioned County of 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 EDPA and consolidated with the Generic Pricing MDL.

J M Smith Litigation. In September 2020, a direct action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA 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.

Walgreen Litigation. In December 2020, a direct action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA named the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers as defendants in an action captioned Walgreen Company v. Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., et al. The plaintiff purports to have 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.

Winn-Dixie Litigation. In December 2020, a direct action complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the EDPA named the Company and other pharmaceutical manufacturers as defendants in an action captioned Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., et al v. Actavis Holdco US, 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.

Canadian (Eaton) Litigation. In December 2020, the Company received a statement of claim filed in federal court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, naming the Company, Mallinckrodt ULC, and certain other of the Company’s subsidiaries, as well as other pharmaceutical manufacturers, as defendants in an action captioned Kathryn Eaton v Teva Canada Limited et al. The claim purports to be brought on behalf of all persons or entities in Canada who, from January 1, 2012 to the present, purchased generic drugs in the private sector. The allegations and requests for relief in the statement of claim, in substance, are similar to those in the 1199SEIU National Benefit Fund litigation, and include the claim that the Company breached the Competition Act in Canada.

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.

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 December 25, 2020, it was probable that it would incur remediation costs in the range of $37.3 million to $85.8 million. The Company also concluded that, as of December 25, 2020, the best estimate within this range was $60.8 million, of which $1.0 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities and the remainder was included in environmental liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 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.

Occidental Chemical Corp. v. 21st Century Fox America, Inc. The Company and approximately 120 other companies were named as defendants in a lawsuit filed in June 2018, by OCC, in which OCC seeks cost recovery and contribution for past and future costs in response to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances into the lower 8 miles of the River. A former Mallinckrodt facility located in Jersey City, NJ (located in Newark Bay) and the former Belleville facility were named in the suit. Due to an indemnification agreement with AVON Inc., Mallinckrodt has tendered the liability for the Jersey City site to AVON Inc. and they have accepted. The Company retains a share of the liability for this suit related to the Belleville facility. A motion to dismiss several of the claims was denied by the court. 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. Between 1967 and 1982, International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation ("IMC"), a predecessor in interest to the Company, leased portions of the Additional and Uncharacterized Sites ("AUS") Operable Unit at the Crab Orchard Superfund Site ("the CO Site") from the government and manufactured various explosives for use in mining and other operations. In March 2002, the DOJ, 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 CO 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 CO 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 costs associated with alleged contamination of soils and groundwater resulting from historic operations, and the parties have entered into a non-binding mediation process. 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.

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 December 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 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 IRC. 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 December 25, 2020 and December 27, 2019, respectively. The decrease of $19.2 million was recognized as a benefit to interest expense during fiscal 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 consolidated statements of operations.