Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Apr. 01, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]


12.			Commitments and Contingencies

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims, including government investigations, environmental matters, product liability matters, patent infringement claims, antitrust matters, securities class action lawsuits, personal injury claims, employment disputes, contractual and other commercial disputes, and all other legal proceedings, all in the ordinary course of business, including those described below. Although it is not feasible to predict the outcome of these matters, the Company believes, unless otherwise indicated below, given the information currently available, that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

On October 12, 2020, 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.

Governmental Proceedings

Opioid-Related Matters

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 April 22, 2022, the cases the Company is aware of include, but are not limited to, approximately 2,619

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 eight 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 April 22, 2022, 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.

Other lawsuits remain pending in various state courts. In some jurisdictions, certain of the state lawsuits have been consolidated or coordinated for pre-trial proceedings before a single court within their respective state court systems.

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.

Amended Proposed Opioid-Related Litigation Settlement. On September 2, 2021, the Debtors further amended its agreement in principle with the 50 state and territory attorneys general and the court-appointed plaintiffs' committee in the opioid multidistrict litigation (the Multi-State Governmental Entities Group), the Governmental Plaintiff Ad Hoc Committee (the GAHC) and the Official Committee of Opioid Related Claimants (the OCC) appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases (together, the Opioid Claimants) that would resolve all opioid-related claims against the Company and its subsidiaries. The agreement in principle provides that, upon the Company’s emergence from the Chapter 11 process, subject to court approval and other conditions:

•Opioid claims would be channeled to one or more trusts, which would receive $1,725.0 million in structured payments consisting of (i) a $450.0 million payment upon the Company’s emergence from Chapter 11; (ii) a $200.0 million payment upon each of the first and second anniversaries of emergence; (iii) a $150.0 million payment upon each of the third through seventh anniversaries of emergence; and (iv) a $125.0 million payment upon the eighth anniversary of emergence with an eighteen month prepayment option at a discount for all but the first payment.

•Opioid claimants would also receive warrants for approximately 19.99% of the reorganized Company’s new outstanding shares, after giving effect to the exercise of the warrants, but subject to dilution from equity reserved under the management incentive plan, exercisable at any time on or prior to the sixth anniversary of the Company's emergence, at a strike price reflecting an aggregate equity value for the reorganized Debtors of $1,551.0 million (the "New Opioid Warrants").

•Upon commencing the Chapter 11 filing, the Company has begun to comply with an agreed-upon operating injunction with respect to the operation of its opioid business.

As of both April 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021, the Company maintained an accrual for this contingency of $1,725.0 million within LSTC. No value has been ascribed to the warrants as of April 1, 2022 or December 31, 2021 as the Company cannot reasonably estimate the equity value upon emergence. For further information on the terms of this proposed resolution, refer to Note 2.

Acthar Gel-Related Matters

Medicaid Lawsuit. In May 2019, CMS issued a final decision directing the Company to revert to the original base date average manufacturers price ("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 HHS and CMS 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 of both April 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021, $634.7 million related to the Medicaid lawsuit was recorded within LSTC.

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 effectiveness of the Proposed Acthar Gel-Related

Settlement, the Company will dismiss its D.C. Circuit appeal. The Company has entered into the Proposed Acthar Gel-Related Settlement with the DOJ and other governmental parties solely to move past these litigation matters and disputes and does not make any admission of liability or wrongdoing.

Commercial and Securities Litigation

Acthar Gel-Related Matters

Law Enforcement Health Benefits Litigation. In May 2021, Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. (“LEHB”) filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and certain of its officers and directors as well as third-party advisors captioned Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc. v. Trudeau, et al., No. 3:21-cv-50215 (N.D. Ill.) (“LEHB”). The complaint alleges antitrust claims under Section 1 and Section 2 and numerous state laws, RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), 1962(c) and 1962(d), fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment and incorporates the allegations at issue in Rockford and the Rockford-related cases. After the complaint was filed, the Company requested that the district court stay the case in light of the Chapter 11 Cases. The motion to stay was granted. In June 2021, LEHB voluntarily dismissed without prejudice the Mallinckrodt defendant entities that are debtors in the Chapter 11 Cases. In July 2021, LEHB voluntarily dismissed without prejudice most of the Company’s officers and directors as named defendants in the case. As of March 10, 2022, the U.S. District Court lifted the stay in this matter and established an initial schedule for the proceedings. 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 April 26, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

For additional details on Rockford and the Rockford-related cases, refer to the notes to the financial statements included within the Company's Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.

Other Commercial and Securities Litigation Matters

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 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 ("Shenk"). The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. 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 the proceedings against the individual named defendants. The Bankruptcy Court extended the injunction staying the proceedings against the individual named defendants on August 30, 2021. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Bankruptcy Court action to the U.S. District Court in Delaware through an interlocutory appeal, which was denied on November 10, 2021. The Bankruptcy Court further extended the injunction on November 29, 2021 and on March 17, 2022. Absent further extension, the injunction will expire at the earlier of (a) plan effective date or (b) June 16, 2022, with certain modifications.

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 contained in the Shenk class action lawsuit. 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. The Bankruptcy Court extended the injunction staying the proceedings against the Brandhorst Defendants on August 30, 2021, and further extended the injunction on November 29, 2021 and on March 17, 2022. Absent further extension, the injunction will expire at the earlier of (a) plan effective date or (b) June 16, 2022, with certain modifications.

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/or 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 to 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 reconsideration, which was denied by that court on January 27, 2021. The Bankruptcy Court extended the injunction staying the proceedings against the Strougo Defendants on August 30, 2021, and further extended the injunction on November 29, 2021 and on March 17, 2022. Absent further extension, the injunction will expire at the earlier of (a) plan effective date or (b) June 16, 2022, with certain modifications.

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 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 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 intend 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 on December 4, 2020, the Bankruptcy Court also enjoined the proceedings against the individual named defendants. The Bankruptcy Court extended the injunction staying the proceedings against the individual named defendants on August 30, 2021, and further extended the injunction on November 29, 2021 and on March 17, 2022. Absent further extension, the injunction will expire at the earlier of (a) plan effective date or (b) June 16, 2022, with certain modifications.

For additional details on the Shenk class action lawsuit, refer to the notes to the financial statements included within the Company's Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.

Environmental Remediation and Litigation Proceedings

The Company is involved in various stages of investigation and cleanup related to environmental remediation matters at a number of sites, including those described below. The ultimate cost of site cleanup and timing of future cash outlays is difficult to predict, given the uncertainties regarding the extent of the required cleanup, the interpretation of applicable laws and regulations and alternative cleanup methods. The Company concluded that, as of April 1, 2022, it was probable that it would incur remediation costs in the range of $82.3 million to $119.2 million. The Company also concluded that, as of April 1, 2022, the best estimate within this range was $105.8 million, of which $1.2 million was included in accrued and other current liabilities, $66.9 million was included in LSTC, and the remaining $37.7 million was included in environmental liabilities on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance

sheet as of April 1, 2022. 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.

Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge Superfund Site, near Marion, Illinois. Between 1967 and 1982, International Minerals and Chemicals Corporation, 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 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (together, "the Government Agencies") issued a special notice letter to General Dynamics Ordinance 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 remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") for the AUS Operable Unit. General Dynamics negotiated an Administrative Order of Consent 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. However, the mediation process has indefinitely stalled due to an "internal issue" that the Government Agencies are facing and cannot seem to resolve.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Company's financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021, the Company increased the accrual associated with this matter by $11.1 million to $57.4 million, which represents the Company's estimate of its liability related to this environmental site, all of which was reflected within LSTC on the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of April 1, 2022. The non-cash charge of $11.1 million was reflected in the unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations as a component of operating expenses. 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.

Internal Revenue Code Section 453A Interest

As a result of historical internal installment sales, the Company has reported Internal Revenue Code ("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 maintained a corresponding liability of $12.4 million within LSTC and other liabilities in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheets as of April 1, 2022 and December 31, 2021, respectively. Favorable resolution of this uncertainty would likely result in a reversal of this liability and a benefit being recorded to interest expense within the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Other Matters

The Company's legal proceedings and claims are further described within the notes to the financial statements included within the Company's Annual Report filed on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021.