Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]


19.			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 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.

Governmental Proceedings

Acthar Gel-Related Matters

SEC Subpoena. In August 2019, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC for documents related to the Company's disclosure of its dispute with the HHS and CMS (together with HHS, the "Agency") concerning the base date average manufacturer price for Acthar Gel under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, which was also the subject of litigation that the Company filed against the Agency. The SEC issued subsequent subpoenas on January 7, 2022 and September 28, 2022, requesting additional documents from the Company.

In connection with the investigation, on January 13, 2023, the SEC staff issued Wells Notices to the Company and individuals, including certain of its current and former executive officers, who were employed during 2019 (collectively, the “Individuals”). The notices indicate that the SEC staff has made a preliminary determination to recommend that the SEC file an enforcement action against the Company that would allege violations of the federal securities laws, and against the Individuals that would allege violations of the federal securities laws and/or aiding and abetting violations of the federal securities laws. The recommendation as to the Company may involve an injunction, a cease-and-desist order and/or other appropriate relief.

The actions recommended by the SEC staff would allege, among other things, that (a) the Company improperly omitted to disclose the dispute with the Agency prior to the litigation filed by the Company in federal court on May 21, 2019, and (b) the Company’s disclosure of the civil investigative demand received from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts in January 2019 (the “Boston CID”) should have stated that the Boston CID related to the Company’s dispute with the Agency.

A Wells Notice is neither a formal charge of wrongdoing nor a final determination that the recipient has violated any law. Under the SEC procedures, a recipient of a Wells Notice has an opportunity to respond and make a submission to the SEC staff setting forth the recipient’s interests and position in regard to the subject matter of the investigation.

The Company believes that it has complied with all applicable laws and regulations, and it has provided a submission explaining the Company’s position and its belief that no enforcement action is warranted or appropriate. The Company understands that the Individuals have provided similar submissions to the SEC staff. The outcome of this matter is uncertain, and as a result, the Company is unable to estimate the potential exposure associated with this matter.

Other Related Matters

Florida Civil Investigative Demand. In or around February 2019, the Company received a civil investigative demand ("CID") from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida for documents related to alleged payments to healthcare providers in Florida and whether those payments violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Company has cooperated with the investigation.

Generic Pricing Subpoena. In March 2018, the Company received a grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the EDPA pursuant to which the Antitrust Division of the DOJ is seeking documents regarding generic products and pricing, communications with generic competitors and other related matters. The Company is in the process of responding to this subpoena and intends to cooperate in the investigation.

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. ("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 ("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.

Patent Litigation

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.

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's 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.

Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV v. Pharmascience Inc. and SpecGx LLC. In December 2019, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV (collectively "Janssen") initiated litigation against the Company and Pharmascience Inc. ("Pharmascience") relating to the collaboration between Company and Pharmascience that resulted in Pharmascience's ANDA submission, containing a Paragraph IV patent certification, with the FDA for a competing version of Invega Sustenna. Janssen alleges that the Company and Pharmascience infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906. On July 13, 2022, the court administratively closed this case pending the outcome of the Federal Circuit's decision in Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Case No. 22-1307.

Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited et al. v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC et al. On December 30, 2022, the Company initiated litigation against Airgas Therapeutics LLC, Airgas USA LLC, and Air Liquide S.A. (collectively "Airgas") in the District of Delaware following notice from Airgas of its ANDA submission seeking approval from FDA for a generic version of INOmax® (nitric oxide) gas, for inhalation ("INOmax"). Many of the patents asserted against Airgas were previously asserted in the District of Delaware against Praxair Distribution, Inc. and Praxair, Inc. (collectively "Praxair") in 2015 and 2016 following Praxair’s submissions with FDA seeking approval for a nitric oxide drug product and delivery system. The litigation against Praxair resulted in Praxair's launch of a competitive nitric oxide product. The Company continues to develop and pursue patent protection of next generation nitric oxide delivery systems and additional uses of nitric oxide and intends to vigorously enforce its intellectual property rights against any parties that may seek to market a generic version of Company's INOmax product and/or next generation delivery systems.

Commercial and Securities Litigation

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 moved to dismiss the complaint, which motion 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. As a result of the Plan, the litigation was discharged against the Company and the claims thereunder are now the obligation of the trust established by the Plan for the benefit of allowed general unsecured claims ("GUC Trust"). The GUC Trust can settle the claims as long as there is no agreement to any findings nor any admission of liability or wrongdoing against the Company in the relevant settlement agreement. On February 17, 2023, this matter was dismissed as to the Company.

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), 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. The complaint alleges the violations of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") under 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c); conspiracy to violate RICO under 18 U.S.C. Section 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, and the matter was stayed during bankruptcy. Following lifting of the automatic stay of this litigation pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code and subsequent reopening of the case in the EDPA, 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 opposed transfer. On January 18, 2023, this matter was dismissed as to the Company.

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 and is captioned as 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. Following lifting of the automatic stay of this litigation pursuant to Section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code, on

September 29, 2022, the court remanded the case to state court; no further action has been taken. At this stage, the Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter both on the merits and as discharged through the bankruptcy.

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 captioned as 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. In January 2021, the Company removed this case to the U.S. District Court for the EDPA. In March 2021, the EDPA 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. In June 2021, the District of Delaware referred this case to the Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. On November 17, 2022, Local 542 filed a motion to withdraw the reference to the District Court, and the case was transferred back to the District of Delaware at Case No. 22-cv-01502. On December 22, 2022, Local 542 filed a request for the motion to withdraw the reference to be decided by the EDPA and to permit remand to state court. On December 28, 2022, the case was assigned to Judge Ambro of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit due to related cases. At this stage, the Company will vigorously defend itself in this matter both on the merits and as discharged through the bankruptcy.

Other Commercial and Securities Litigation Matters

Putative Class Action Securities Litigation (Strougo). In July 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, its former CEO Mark C. Trudeau, its Chief Financial Officer ("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 various false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose various material facts regarding Acthar Gel and its results of operations. On October 1, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. As to the Company, this litigation is subject to the automatic stay under Section 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. On March 17, 2022, the Strougo action was administratively closed. On March 29, 2022, the Strougo action was reinstated only with respect to the individual defendants, and the individual defendants filed their reply in support of their motion to dismiss on May 2, 2022. On July 21, 2022, the Company filed a notice of discharge that, if approved by the court, would result in dismissal for the Company. The notice informed the court that (i) the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan; (ii) the Company's discharge pursuant to Section 1141(d) of the Bankruptcy Code of the claims asserted against it in the Strougo action had taken effect; and (iii) the Plan and the discharge injunction enjoin any party from, among other things, continuing to pursue claims against the Company in the Strougo action. On December 16, 2022, the District Court issued an order denying the individual defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects. The individual defendants have answered the complaint and the case is now proceeding into the discovery phase. As to the Company, this matter was resolved in bankruptcy with no further liability against the Company.

Employee Stock Purchase Plan Securities Litigation. On November 28, 2022, the court entered an order pursuant to which all derivative claims were dismissed without prejudice, all remaining claims were dismissed with prejudice as to the plaintiffs and without prejudice as to all other members of the putative class, and the case was closed.

Generic Pharmaceutical Antitrust Multi-District Litigation.

In August 2016, a multi-district litigation ("MDL") was established in the EDPA relating to allegations of antitrust violations with respect to generic pharmaceutical pricing ("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. The Generic Pricing MDL includes lawsuits against the Company and dozens of other pharmaceutical companies, including a complaint filed by Attorneys General for 51 States, Territories and the District of Columbia seeking monetary damages and injunctive relief. While the Company is not subject to monetary damages in connection with

these matters as a result of the Plan and vigorously disagrees with the plaintiffs' characterization of the facts and law, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate whether any injunctive relief will be granted, and if granted, whether it will materially impact the Company's financial position or operations; the Company does not intend to provide further disclosure unless this assessment changes.

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 December 30, 2022 (Successor), it was probable that it would incur remediation costs in the range of $18.4 million to $48.5 million. The Company also concluded that, as of December 30, 2022 (Successor), the best estimate within this range was $36.9 million, of which $1.1 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 30, 2022 (Successor). 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.

Lower Passaic River, New Jersey. The Company and approximately 70 other companies ("Cooperating Parties Group" or "CPG") are parties to a May 2007 Administrative Order on Consent ("AOC") with the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") of the 17-mile stretch known as the Lower Passaic River ("the River") Study Area. The Company's potential liability stems from former operations at Lodi and Belleville, New Jersey. In April 2014, the EPA issued a revised Focused Feasibility Study ("FFS"), with remedial alternatives to address cleanup of the lower 8-mile stretch of the River. The EPA estimated the cost for the remediation alternatives ranged from $365.0 million to $3.2 billion and the EPA's preferred approach had an estimated cost of $1.7 billion. In April 2015, the CPG presented a draft of the RI/FS of the River to the EPA that included alternative remedial actions for the entire 17-mile stretch of the River. In March 2016, the EPA issued the Record of Decision ("ROD") for the lower 8 miles of the River with a slight modification on its preferred approach and a revised estimated cost of $1.38 billion. In October 2016, the EPA announced that Occidental Chemicals Corporation ("OCC") had entered into an agreement to develop the remedial design.

In August 2018, the EPA finalized a buyout offer of $280,600 with the Company, limited to its former Lodi facility, for the lower 8 miles of the River. On September 28, 2021, the EPA issued the Record of Decision for the upper 9 miles of the River selecting source control as the remedy for the upper 9 miles with an estimated cost of $441.0 million. As of December 30, 2022 (Successor), the Company estimated that its remaining liability related to the River was $21.0 million, which was included within in environmental liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 30, 2022 (Successor). Despite the issuance of the revised FFS and the RODs for both the lower and upper River by the EPA, the RI/FS by the CPG, and the cash out settlement by the EPA, there are many uncertainties associated with the final agreed-upon remediation, potential future liabilities and the Company's allocable share of the remediation. Given those uncertainties, the amounts accrued may not be indicative of the amounts for which the Company may be ultimately responsible and will be refined as the remediation progresses.

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. Although the Company was not named as a defendant for the Belleville facility, the Company retains a share of the liability for this suit. A motion to dismiss several of the claims was denied by the court. As a result of the Plan, the lawsuit was discharged against the Company. Any reserves associated with this contingency were included in LSTC as of the Effective Date, as any related liabilities were discharged under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

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 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. However, the mediation process has indefinitely stalled due to an "internal issue" that the U.S. is facing and cannot seem to resolve. As a result of the Plan, this matter was discharged against the Company.

Bankruptcy Litigation and Appeals

First Lien Noteholder Matters. As set forth in greater detail in Note 2, the Plan proposed to reinstate the Existing First Lien Notes. Certain holders of the Existing First Lien Notes and the trustee in respect thereof (collectively, the "Noteholder Parties"), objected to the proposed reinstatement, arguing, among other things, that the Company was required to pay a significant make-whole premium as a condition to reinstatement of the Existing First Lien Notes. In the course of confirming the Plan, the Bankruptcy Court overruled these objections.

On March 30, 2022, the Noteholder Parties appealed the confirmation order's approval of the reinstatement of the Existing First Lien Notes to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The Company and the Existing First Lien Notes Trustee reached an agreement to hold the trustee's appeal in abeyance, to be determined by the result of the holders' appeals, subject to certain conditions, which was approved by the District Court. Briefing on the merits of the Noteholder Parties' appeals was completed on July 1, 2022. On the same date, the Company moved to dismiss the Noteholder Parties' appeals as equitably moot. Briefing on the motion was completed on August 5, 2022 and supplemental declarations have been filed in the appeal. The Noteholder Parties' appeals and the related motion to dismiss remain pending.

At this stage, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the expected amount or range of cost or any loss associated with these appeals. The Company will continue to vigorously defend the Plan.

Sanofi. On October 12, 2021, in the Company's bankruptcy, sanofi-aventis U.S. LLC ("Sanofi") filed a motion asking the Bankruptcy Court for an order determining that, under the Bankruptcy Code, the Company could not discharge alleged royalty obligations owed to Sanofi under an asset purchase agreement through which the Company acquired certain intellectual property from Sanofi's predecessor ("Sanofi Motion"). On November 8, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court denied the Sanofi Motion and ordered that any royalty obligations allegedly owed to Sanofi constitute prepetition unsecured claims that may be discharged under the Bankruptcy Code. On November 19, 2021, Sanofi appealed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling of the Sanofi Motion to the District Court. Briefing was completed on March 10, 2022 and the District Court affirmed on December 20, 2022, for which Sanofi filed a notice of appeal on January 17, 2023. Sanofi had also appealed the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order, on February 18, 2022, and briefing has been completed. As of the date of this annual report, the appeal regarding the confirmation order remains pending and will likely remain pending until Sanofi's Third Circuit appeal of the Sanofi Motion is resolved.

Glenridge. On October 21, 2021, in the Company's bankruptcy, Kenneth Greathouse, Stuart Rose, and Lloyd Glenn (collectively, the "Glenridge Principals") filed a joinder to the Sanofi Motion and asked the Bankruptcy Court for an order similarly determining that royalty obligations owed by the Company to the Glenridge Principals under a royalty agreement were not dischargeable under the Bankruptcy Code and that the royalty agreement could not be rejected by the Company in its bankruptcy. On December 1, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court denied the motion, entering an order that the royalty agreement between the Company and the Glenridge Principals could be rejected under the Bankruptcy Code and that any royalties owed under the agreement were prepetition unsecured claims that could be discharged under the Bankruptcy Code. On December 15, 2021, the Glenridge Principals appealed the Bankruptcy Court's ruling to the District Court. Briefing has not been completed at this time. The parties mutually agreed to extend the briefing deadlines. Subsequently, on March 16, 2022, the Glenridge Principals appealed the confirmation order and thereafter the parties stipulated to the dismissal of both appeals on November 16, 2022 and are awaiting entry of an order approving such stipulation. The GUC Trust, the Company and the Glenridge Principals reached a settlement, which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court on October 28, 2022. Thereafter, the parties stipulated to dismissal of both appeals on November 16, 2022 and are awaiting court order closing the appeals.

Acthar Insurance Claimants. In the Company's bankruptcy, Attestor Limited and Humana Inc. (collectively, the "Acthar Insurance Claimants") filed administrative claims with the Bankruptcy Court seeking hundreds of millions of dollars based on the Company's allegedly illegal sales of Acthar Gel. The Company objected to the claims, arguing that the Company had no such liability. After a bench trial, the Bankruptcy Court, on December 6, 2021, sustained the Company's objection and disallowed the administrative claims filed by the Acthar Insurance Claimants. The Acthar Insurance Claimants appealed that ruling to the District Court on December 20, 2021. On February 4, 2022, the Acthar Insurance Claimants moved to have the District Court certify their appeal directly to the Third Circuit. Meanwhile, on July 1, 2022, the Company moved to dismiss the Acthar Insurance Claimants' appeal as equitably moot. Briefing on that motion was completed on August 5, 2022. On October 31, 2022, the District Court denied the Acthar Insurance Claimants motion for direct appeal to the Third Circuit. On February 20, 2023, the parties entered into a settlement agreement in an amount immaterial to the Company, with no findings nor any admission of liability or wrongdoing against the Company, and the matter was dismissed on February 24, 2023.

Stratatech. As described in Note 20, consummation of the Plan discharged the Company's liability with respect to certain contingent consideration provided to the prior securityholders of Stratatech Corporation ("Stratatech"). However, Russell Smestad, as the representative of these securityholders, has filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court for an order either (i) granting allowance and immediate payment of an administrative expense claim in the amount of the liability of $20 million or (ii) finding that the claim was not susceptible to discharge and should be paid in full. The Company believes that the securityholders’ motion is without merit and intends to vigorously oppose it.

Banks et al. v. Cotter Corporation et al. v. Mallinckrodt LLC, et al. On January 29, 2023, the named plaintiffs in Banks et al. v. Cotter Corporation et al. v. Mallinckrodt LLC, et al. No. 20-CV-1227 (E.D. Mo.) filed a motion to amend their class-action petition to add Mallinckrodt LLC as a defendant. Mallinckrodt LLC filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court to enjoin this petition on the grounds that these alleged claims were discharged pursuant to the Plan and confirmation order. Both motions remain pending until the Bankruptcy Court adjudicates the motion to enjoin.

Other Matters

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