XML 38 R26.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.5.0.2
Commitments and Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Commitments and Contingencies

NOTE 20 — Commitments & Contingencies

The Company and its affiliates are involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings, and litigation matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The Company’s general practice is to expense legal fees as services are rendered in connection with legal matters, and to accrue for liabilities when losses are probable and reasonably estimable.

The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that is accrued. As of September 30, 2016, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of approximately $115.0 million, which includes approximately $22.0 million which was assumed by Teva as part of the closing of the sale of the Anda Distribution business on October 3, 2016.

The Company’s legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to mass tort actions and class actions with thousands of putative class members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, qui tam actions, antitrust, product liability, breach of contract, securities, patent infringement and trade practices), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, some matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss. In those proceedings in which plaintiffs do request publicly quantified amounts of relief, the Company does not believe that the quantified amounts are meaningful because they are merely stated jurisdictional limits, exaggerated and/or unsupported by the evidence or applicable burdens of proof.

As noted above, on October 3, 2016, the Company completed the divestiture of the Anda Distribution business to Teva.  At closing Teva assumed certain liabilities and claims of the Company described below under “Teva Assumed Liabilities.”

Antitrust Litigation

Asacol® Litigation. On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of indirect purchasers. In each complaint plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott’s Asacol® HD and Delzicol® products as a result of Warner Chilcott’s alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market for Warner Chilcott’s older Asacol® product in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys’ fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court. On September 21, 2015, three additional complaints were filed on behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers, each raising similar allegations to the complaints filed in June 2015. Defendants have moved to dismiss the indirect purchasers’ complaint. A hearing was held on the motion to dismiss on May 11, 2016.  On July 20, 2016, the court issued a decision granting the motion in part, dismissing the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims based on purported reverse payments and dismissed several of indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims based on state laws. On August 15, 2016,the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint .  The Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint on October 4, 2016.  A complaint was filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers of Asacol® in federal court in New York on April 26, 2016.  The direct purchaser complaint makes similar allegations to the complaints filed by the indirect purchaser plaintiffs.  On May 25, 2016, defendants filed a motion to transfer the direct purchaser action to the federal court in Massachusetts where it could be consolidated with the indirect purchaser cases.   Two additional direct purchaser putative class action complaints were filed in federal court in New York on June 29, 2016.  On September 7, 2016, direct purchaser plaintiffs agreed to transfer the cases filed in New York to the federal court in Massachusetts where they were consolidated.  On October 11, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the direct purchasers’ consolidated complaint.  The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Botox® Litigation. On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C. §1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California’s Cartwright Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and violations of California’s unfair competition law, Section 17200 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 29, 2015. On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 20, 2015, the Court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or adjudication. The Company filed a response to the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016. The court held oral argument on plaintiff’s motion on March 4, 2016 and took the matter under submission. On May 31, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for partial judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial summary judgment or adjudication.  On June 14, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the court’s denial of the motion.  On July 19, 2016, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  On October 14, 2016, the Company filed an opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.  The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. 

Doryx® Litigation. In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) filed a complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International Pty. Ltd. (“Mayne”) in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan’s generic competition to Warner Chilcott’s Doryx® products in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan’s prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law. In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive damages and attorneys’ fees. Following the filing of Mylan’s complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one putative class action was filed by purported indirect purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities.  In each of the class and individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott’s Doryx® products as a result of Warner Chilcott’s and Mayne’s alleged actions preventing or delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys’ fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district court.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne’s motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for summary judgment on March 10, 2014. On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner Chilcott and Mayne’s motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan’s summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan  appealed the district court’s decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.  On September 28, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued its decision and affirmed the ruling of the district court.  On October 12, 2016 Mylan petitioned the Third Circuit for a rehearing en banc.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar suits will be filed.

Loestrin® 24 Litigation. On April 5, 2013, two putative class were filed in the federal district court against Warner Chilcott and certain affiliates alleging that Warner Chilcott’s 2009 patent lawsuit settlements with Watson Laboratories and Lupin related to Loestrin® 24 Fe (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, “Loestrin® 24”) were unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that Watson and Lupin improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin® 24 in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors. In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors. After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order transferring all related Loestrin® 24 cases to the federal court for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs appealed the district court’s decision to the First Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument was held on December 7, 2015. On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the district court.  On June 11, 2016, defendants filed an omnibus motion to dismiss the claims of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs, end-payor class plaintiffs and individual direct purchaser plaintiffs.

Namenda® Litigation. On September 15, 2014, the State of New York, through the Office of the Attorney General of the State of New York, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Forest’s immediate-release product Namenda® in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda® XR. In the complaint, the state seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief. On September 24, 2014, the state filed a motion for a preliminary injunction prohibiting Forest from discontinuing or otherwise limiting the availability of immediate-release Namenda® until the conclusion of the litigation. A hearing was held in November 2014 on the state’s preliminary injunction motion. On December 11, 2014, the district court issued a ruling granting the state’s injunction motion and issued an injunction on December 15, 2014. On May 22, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunction. On June 5, 2015, Forest filed a petition with the Second Circuit for rehearing en banc which was denied. Forest and the New York Attorney General reached a settlement on November 24, 2015. On May 29, 2015, a putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of direct purchasers and on June 8, 2015 a similar putative class action was filed on behalf of a class of indirect purchasers. Since that time, additional complaints have been filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. The class action complaints make claims similar to those asserted by the New York Attorney General and also include claims that Namenda® patent litigation settlements between Forest and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws. On December 22, 2015, Forest and its co-defendants filed motions to dismiss the pending complaints of the putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers. On September 13, 2016, the court issued a decision denying the Company’s motion to dismiss.  On September 27, 2016 the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend both its brand and generic defendant entities vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Zymar®/Zymaxid® Litigation. On February 16, 2012, Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. filed a complaint in the federal district court in Delaware against Senju Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd. (“Senju”), Kyorin Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Kyorin”), and Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, conspiracy to monopolize, and unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations, which includes Allergan’s ZYMAR® gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.3% and ZYMAXID® gatifloxacin ophthalmic solution 0.5% products. On May 24, 2012, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the complaint to the extent it seeks to impose liability for alleged injuries occurring prior to August 19, 2011, which is the date Apotex obtained final approval of its proposed generic product. Allergan and the other defendants also moved to dismiss. Defendants also filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of related patent actions in the federal court in Delaware and in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On February 7, 2013, the court granted defendants’ motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal in the patent dispute and denied the motion to dismiss without prejudice to renew. On September 18, 2014, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Apotex plaintiffs’ complaint. The court dismissed Allergan’s motion on May 2, 2015. Thereafter, Allergan filed an answer to Apotex’s complaint on June 1, 2015. On June 6, 2014, a separate antitrust class action complaint was filed in the federal district court in Delaware against the same defendants as in the Apotex case. The complaint alleges that defendants unlawfully excluded or delayed generic competition in the gatifloxacin ophthalmic formulations market (generic versions of ZYMAR® and ZYMAXID®). On September 18, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and joined in co-defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On August 19, 2015, the court granted Allergan’s motion to dismiss. On September 18, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Third Circuit oral argument was held on June 13, 2016.  On September 7, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the District Court’s granting of Allergan’s motion to dismiss and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.  The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Commercial Litigation

Celexa®/Lexapro® Class Actions. Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in three federal court actions filed on behalf of individuals who purchased Celexa® and/or Lexapro® for pediatric use, all of which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in an MDL proceeding in the federal district court Massachusetts (the “Celexa®/Lexapro® MDL”). These actions, two of which were originally filed as putative nationwide class actions, and one of which is a putative California-wide class action, allege that Forest marketed Celexa® and/or Lexapro® for off-label pediatric use and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa® and Lexapro®. The complaints assert various similar claims, including claims under the state consumer protection statutes and state common laws. Plaintiffs in the various actions sought to have certified California, Missouri, Illinois and New York state-wide classes. However, only the Missouri state class was certified. Forest subsequently reached an agreement with the MDL plaintiffs to settle the Missouri class claims, including claims by both individuals and third party payors that purchased Celexa® or Lexapro® for use by a minor from 1998 to December 31, 2013, for $7.65 million with a potential to increase the amount to $10.35 million if settling plaintiffs meet certain thresholds. On September 8, 2014 the court granted final approval for the settlement.

Additional actions relating to the promotion of Celexa® and/or Lexapro® have been filed all of which have been consolidated in the Celexa®/Lexapro® MDL. On May 3, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in California on behalf of individuals who purchased Lexapro® for adolescent use, seeking to certify a state-wide class action in California and alleging that our promotion of Lexapro® for adolescent depression has been deceptive. On March 5, 2014 the court granted Forest’s motion to dismiss this complaint. Plaintiff then appealed the district court’s decision to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and on February 20, 2015, the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that Plaintiffs’ California state law claims were preempted by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). On November 13, 2013, an action was filed in federal court in Minnesota seeking to certify a nationwide class of third-party payor entities that purchased Celexa® and Lexapro® for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa® and Lexapro®. Forest moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 12, 2014, the court issued a ruling dismissing plaintiff’s claims under Minnesota’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act, but denying the remaining portions of the motion. A motion for class certification was filed in February, 2016, and denied on June 2, 2016.  Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a 23(f) petition with the First Circuit requesting leave to appeal the denial of class certification.  The district court judge entered an Order dated August 8, 2016, staying discovery in the case until the First Circuit renders a decision on plaintiffs’ 23(f) petition. On March 13, 2014, an action was filed in the federal court in Massachusetts by two third-party payors seeking to certify a nationwide class of persons and entities that purchased Celexa® and Lexapro® for use by pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state consumer protection statutes, and state common laws, alleging that Forest engaged in an off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa® and Lexapro®. The court granted Forest’s motion to dismiss this complaint in its December 12, 2014 ruling. On August 28, 2014, an action was filed in the federal district court in Washington seeking to certify a nationwide class of consumers and subclasses of Washington and Massachusetts consumers that purchased Celexa® and Lexapro® for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, alleging that Forest engaged in off-label marketing scheme and paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce prescriptions of Celexa® and Lexapro®. Forest’s response to the complaint was filed on December 19, 2014. On June 16, 2015, the court issued a ruling on the motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part. Plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint. Forest moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  On June 9, 2016, the court denied Forest’s motion.

Forest and certain of its affiliates were also named as defendants in two actions filed on behalf of entities or individuals who purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa® and Lexapro® for pediatric use pending in the Missouri state court. These claims arise from similar allegations as those contained in the federal actions described in the preceding paragraphs. One action, filed on November 6, 2009, was brought by two entities that purchased or reimbursed certain purchases of Celexa® and/or Lexapro®. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees. The other action, filed on July 22, 2009, was filed as a putative class action on behalf of a class of Missouri citizens who purchased Celexa® for pediatric use. The complaint asserts claims under the Missouri consumer protection statute and Missouri common law, and seeks unspecified damages and attorneys’ fees. In October 2010, the court certified a class of Missouri domiciliary citizens who purchased Celexa® for pediatric use at any time prior to the date of the class certification order, but who do not have a claim for personal injury. The Company reached agreements with both sets of plaintiffs in the Missouri actions to resolve each matter for payments that are not material to our financial condition or results of operations.

The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation.  In October 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants, in a putative class action in federal court in Missouri. This suit alleges that Forest and another defendant violated the TCPA and was filed on behalf of a proposed class that includes all persons who, from four years prior to the filing of the action, were sent telephone facsimile messages of material advertising the commercial availability of any property, goods, or services by or on behalf of defendants, which did not display an opt-out notice compliant with a certain regulation promulgated by the FCC. On July 17, 2013, the district court granted Forest’s motion to stay the action pending the administrative proceeding initiated by the pending FCC Petition and a separate petition Forest filed. On October 31, 2015, another class action complaint was filed in Missouri state court against Allergan USA, Inc., Warner Chilcott Corporation and Actavis, Inc. alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, the Missouri Consumer Fraud and Protection Act and conversion on behalf of a putative nationwide class of plaintiffs to who defendant Warner Chilcott Corporation sent unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Defendants removed this action to the federal district court for the Western District of Missouri on December 10, 2015 and responded to the complaint on February 8, 2016. On February 17, 2016, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed defendants Allergan USA, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. from the litigation.

In a related matter, on June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on Forest’s and several other similar petitions. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Forest and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Forest and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation.  Warner Chilcott has filed a similar petition with the FCC.

Forest and Warner Chilcott believe they have substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, and intend to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Prescription Drug Abuse Litigation. On May 21, 2014, the California counties Santa Clara and Orange filed a lawsuit in California state court on behalf of the State of California against several pharmaceutical manufacturers. Plaintiffs named Actavis plc in the suit. The California plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2014. On June 2, 2014, the City of Chicago also filed a complaint in Illinois state court against the same set of defendants, including Actavis plc, that were sued in the California Action. Co-defendants in the action removed the matter to the federal court in Illinois. Both the California and Chicago complaints allege that the manufacturer defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote their products in violation of state and local laws. Each of the complaints seeks unspecified monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief. Defendants have moved to dismiss the complaints in each action. On May 8, 2015, the court in the Chicago litigation granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On August 26, 2015, the City of Chicago filed a second amended complaint. On September 29, 2016, the court in the Chicago litigation granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the second amended complaint.  In the California action, on August 27, 2015, the court stayed the action based on primary jurisdiction arguments raised in the motions to dismiss. On June 3, 2016, the California plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the stay and a motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.  On July 1, 2016, the Company and codefendants filed joint oppositions to the California plaintiffs’ motion to lift the stay and motion for leave to file a third amended complaint.  On July 27, 2016, the court ordered the California plaintiffs to file another motion for leave to file an amended complaint along with a proposed amended complaint.  On October 19, 2016, the court in the California litigation lifted the stay in part permitting defendants to challenge the third amended complaint and for the parties to discuss settlement and maintaining the stay in all other respects.  On December 15, 2015, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit in Mississippi state court against several pharmaceutical manufacturers.  The Mississippi action parallels the allegations in the California and Chicago matters and seeks monetary and equitable relief.  In March and April 2016, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, stay, and transfer venue in the Mississippi action.  The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The Company believes it has several meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, an adverse determination in these actions could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Testosterone Replacement Therapy Class Action. On November 24, 2014, the Company was served with a putative class action complaint filed on behalf a class of third party payers in federal court in Illinois. The suit alleges that the Company and other named pharmaceutical defendants violated various laws including the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and state consumer protection laws in connection with the sale and marketing of certain testosterone replacement therapy pharmaceutical products (“TRT Products”), including the Company’s Androderm® product. This matter was filed in the TRT Products Liability MDL, described in more detail below, notwithstanding that it is not a product liability matter. Plaintiff alleges that it reimbursed third parties for dispensing TRT Products to beneficiaries of its insurance policies. Plaintiff seeks to obtain certain equitable relief, including injunctive relief and an order requiring restitution and/or disgorgement, and to recover damages and multiple damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint, after which plaintiff amended its complaint. Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on February 3, 2016. The Court dismissed plaintiff’s substantive RICO claims for mail and wire fraud for failure to plead with particularity under Rule 9(b) but granted plaintiffs leave to replead. The court also dismissed plaintiff’s state law statutory claims and common law claims for fraud and unjust enrichment. The Court declined to dismiss plaintiff’s conspiracy claims pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and its claims for negligent misrepresentation. On March 2, 2016, the defendants jointly filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the court’s ruling on plaintiff’s claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). Plaintiff filed its Third Amended Complaint on April 7, 2016.  Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint on May 5, 2016, plaintiffs filed opposition to same on June 20, 2016 and defendants jointly filed a reply on July 7, 2016.  On August 2, 2016, the Court dismissed all claims in the Third Amended Complaint against the Company except Count XXIV alleging conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).  On August 29, 2016, the Company filed a Motion for Reconsideration or, in the Alternative, Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal, which the Court denied on the September 8, 2016.  Discovery is in the early stages.  The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged and intends to vigorously defend the action. However, an adverse determination in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

TNS Products Litigation. On March 19, 2014, a complaint was filed in the federal district court in California. The complaint alleges violations of the California Unfair Competition Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the False Advertising Law, and deceit. On June 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. On June 23, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. On September 5, 2014, the court granted-in-part and denied-in-part Allergan’s motion to dismiss. On September 8, 2014, the court set trial for September 1, 2015. On November 4, 2014, Allergan and SkinMedica filed a motion to dismiss. On January 7, 2015, Allergan and SkinMedica’s motion to dismiss was denied. On January 15, 2015, the court set a trial date of February 16, 2016. On February 19, 2015 Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. On May 27, 2015, the case was stayed pending the decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in another matter involving similar legal issues. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Xaleron Dispute. On February 5, 2016, Xaleron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Allergan, Inc. and Actavis, Inc. in state court in New York. The complaint, filed on February 26, 2016, alleges Allergan misappropriated Xaleron’s confidential business information and asserts claims for unfair competition, tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and unjust enrichment. The company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on April 15, 2016.  On September 13, 2016 the court issued a decision denying the Company’s motion.  The Company filed an answer to the complaint and the parties are now engaged in discovery.  The Company intends to vigorously defend against this action. However, this action, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Employment Litigation

In July 2012, Forest and certain of its affiliates were named as defendants in an action brought by certain former company sales representatives and specialty sales representatives in the federal district court in New York. The action is a putative class and collective action, and alleges class claims under Title VII for gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions, as well as discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, and a collective action claim under the Equal Pay Act. The proposed Title VII gender class includes all current and former female sales representatives employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment, and the proposed Title VII pregnancy sub-class includes all current and former female sales representatives who have been, are, or will become pregnant while employed by the Company throughout the U.S. from 2008 to the date of judgment. The proposed Equal Pay Act collective action class includes current, former, and future female sales representatives who were not compensated equally to similarly-situated male employees during the applicable liability period. The Second Amended Complaint also includes non-class claims on behalf of certain of the named Plaintiffs for sexual harassment and retaliation under Title VII, and for violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act. On August 14, 2014, the court issued a decision on the Company’s motion to dismiss, granting it in part and denying it in part, striking the plaintiffs’ proposed class definition and instead limiting the proposed class to a smaller set of potential class members and dismissing certain of the individual plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional certification of an Equal Pay Act collective action on May 22, 2015 which the Company has opposed. On September 2, 2015, the court granted plaintiffs motion to conditionally certify a collective action. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

Patent Litigation

Patent Enforcement Matters

Amrix®. In August 2014, Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc. (“Aptalis”) and Ivax International GmbH (“Ivax”), Aptalis’s licensee for Amrix, brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,790,199 (the “’199 patent”), and 7,829,121 (the “’121 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Apotex Inc. and Apotex Corp. (collectively “Apotex”). Apotex has notified Aptalis that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market a generic version of Amrix before these patents expire. (The ’199 and ’121 patents expire in November 2023.) This lawsuit triggered an automatic stay of approval of Apotex’s ANDA until no earlier than December 27, 2016 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Forest sooner, and subject to any other exclusivities, such as a first filer 180 day market exclusivity). A bench trial concluded on November 17, 2015. Post-trial briefing concluded on April 8, 2016. On September 29, 2016, Adare Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Ivax filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Apotex asserting that Apotex’s generic product will infringe U.S. Patent No. 9,399,025.  No schedule has been set.  The Company believes it has meritorious claims to prevent the generic applicant from launching a generic version of Amrix. However, there can be no assurance a generic version will not be launched.

Bystolic® IPR. On December 23, 2015, Forest Laboratories Holdings Limited (“Forest”) received a notification letter that an Inter Partes Review of the USPTO (“IPR”) petition was filed by Lower Drug Prices for Consumers, LLC (“LDPC”) regarding U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040, expiring on December 17, 2021 (the “’040 Patent”). LDPC filed the IPR petition on December 22, 2015, and refiled a corrected petition on January 20, 2016. Forest filed a Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response on April 22, 2016. On July 1, 2016, the USPTO Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”) filed their decision denying institution of the IPR.  Thereafter, LDPC filed a Request for Rehearing of the decision denying institution of the IPR.  On October 19, 2016, the PTAB denied the Request for Rehearing.

Canasa®. In July 2013, Aptalis Pharma US, Inc. and Aptalis Pharma Canada Inc. brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,217,083 (the “’083 patent”) and 8,436,051 (the “’051 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Mylan and Sandoz. These companies have notified Aptalis that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Canasa® before these patents expire. Amended complaints were filed against these companies in November 2013 adding claims for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,854,384 (the “’384 patent”). The ’083, ’051, and ’384 patents expire in June 2028. On November 11, 2015, Aptalis entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Mylan may launch its generic version of Canasa® on December 15, 2018, or earlier under certain circumstances. On March 22, 2016, Aptalis entered into a settlement agreement with Sandoz. On December 14, 2015, Aptalis brought an action for infringement of the ’083, ’051, and ’384 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Pharmaceutical Sourcing Partners, Inc. (“PSP”). PSP had notified Aptalis that it had filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Canasa® before certain of these patents expire. This lawsuit triggered an automatic stay of approval of PSP’s ANDA that expires no earlier than May 2018 (unless a court issues a decision adverse to Aptalis sooner). On December 23 and 27, 2015, Aptalis brought actions for infringement of the ’083, ’051, and ’384 patents in the U.S. District Courts for the District of New Jersey and the District of Delaware, respectively, against Delcor Asset Corp., Renaissance Pharma, Inc. and Renaissance Acquisition Holdings, LLC (“Delcor”). Delcor has notified Aptalis that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Canasa before certain of these patents expire. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of Delcor’s ANDA that expires no earlier than May 2018 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Aptalis sooner). On March 14, 2016, Aptalis filed a motion to dismiss PSP’s Seventh and Eighth counterclaims alleging unfair competition and tortious interference under state law, or in the alternative, to bifurcate the trial and stay discovery relating to PSP’s Seventh and Eighth counterclaims. Trial is scheduled for November 2017 in the PSP action. On April 8, 2016, Aptalis entered into a settlement agreement with Delcor. On May 27, 2016, the Court denied Aptalis’ motion to the extent that it concerns dismissal of PSP’s Seventh and Eighth counterclaims, denied without prejudice to the extent that the motion concerns bifurcation and a stay and granted leave to Aptalis to move again concerning bifurcation and a stay. On June 24, 2016, Aptalis filed an answer to PSP’s counterclaims. On October 13, 2016, Aptalis entered into a settlement agreement with PSP, and the case was dismissed on October 20, 2016.

Combigan® II-III. In 2012, Allergan filed a complaint against Sandoz, Alcon, Apotex and Watson in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, alleging that their proposed products infringe U.S. Patent Number 8,133,890 (“890 Patent”), and subsequently amended their complaint to assert infringement of U.S. Patent Number 8,354,409. In March 2013, Allergan received a Paragraph IV invalidity and non-infringement certification from Sandoz, contending that the ‘890 Patent is invalid and not infringed by the proposed generic product. In October 2013, Allergan filed a motion to stay and administratively close the Combigan II matter, which was granted. In April 2015, Allergan filed a stipulation of dismissal and the U.S. District Court granted the Order with respect to the Watson defendants. In October 2015, the U.S. District Court entered an order consolidating the Combigan® III matter C.A. 2:15-cv-00347-JRG into this matter C.A. 2:12-cv-00207-JRG, as lead case and subsequently, set the bench trial for October 25, 2016. A Markman Hearing was held on March 2, 2016.

On May 19, 2016, Sandoz filed an opposed motion for leave to amend its answer and counterclaim seeking to add a count for declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘149 Patent. On July 20, 2016, Alcon and Sandoz filed motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement of claim 4 of the ‘149 Patent, and Allergan filed a motion for summary judgment of infringement of claim 4 of the ‘149 Patent and to preclude Sandoz from re-challenging the validity of that claim. On September 30, 2016, the Court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment.  Trial began October 25, 2016. . While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patents at issue in this litigation, Allergan can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuit will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched.

Delzicol®. On August 28, 2015, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, and Qualicaps Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,649,180 (the “‘180 patent”) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”). Teva notified Plaintiffs that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Delzicol® before the ‘180 patent expires in April 2020. This lawsuit triggered an automatic stay of approval of Teva’s ANDA that expires no earlier than January 2018 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Plaintiffs sooner). Trial is scheduled for October 2017. On November 9, 2015, Plaintiffs also brought an action for infringement of ‘180 patent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Mylan Laboratories Limited and Mylan, Inc. (collectively, “Mylan”). Mylan notified Plaintiffs that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Delzicol® before the ‘180 patent expires in April 2020. This lawsuit triggered an automatic stay of approval of Mylan’s ANDA that expires no earlier than March 2018 (unless a court issues a decision adverse to Plaintiffs sooner). On December 16, 2015, Mylan filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue, which remains pending. Trial is scheduled for October 2017. In March 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the Mylan litigation (C.A. 2:15-cv-01740) with the Teva litigation (C.A. 2:15-cv-01471) matter as the lead case.

On April 1, 2016, Warner Chilcott Company, LLC, Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Ltd., Allergan USA, LLC and Qualicaps Co., Ltd. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) brought an action for infringement of the ‘180 patent in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Zydus International Pvt. Ltd., Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, “Zydus”). Zydus notified the Company that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Delzicol® before the ‘180 patent expires. In May 2016, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint against Mylan and a first amended and second amended complaint against Teva. In June 2016, Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Mylan and a third amended complaint against Teva. On June 27, 2016, Teva filed an answer and counterclaims and Mylan filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a claim, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue, which remains pending. On June 9, 2016, Zydus filed an answer and counterclaims.

On July 21, 2016, the Plaintiffs filed an answer to Teva’s counterclaim and to Zydus’s counterclaim. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patent at issue in these litigations, Warner Chilcott can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuits will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched. 

Gelnique® 10% gel. In October 2015, Actavis Laboratories, UT, Inc. (“Actavis”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,029,694 (“’694 Patent”), 7,179,483 (“’483 Patent”), 8,241,662 (“’662 Patent”), and 8,920,392 (“’392 Patent”) against Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”). Par notified Plaintiff that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Gelnique® 10% gel before the ’694 Patent, ’483 Patent, ’662 Patent, and the ’392 Patent expires. The ’694, ’483, and ’662 Patents expire in April 2020, and the ’392 Patent expires in March 2031. This lawsuit triggered an automatic stay of approval of Par’s ANDA that expires no earlier than February 19, 2018 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Plaintiff sooner). In June and July 2016, the Court entered stipulations and orders staying this litigation.  On October 4, 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the case was dismissed.

Lastacaft®. In May 2016, Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) and Vistakon Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Vistakon”) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,664,215 (“’215 Patent”) against Somerset Therapeutics, LLC (“Somerset”). Somerset notified Allergan and Vistakon that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Lastacaft® before the ‘215 Patent expires.   On October 18, 2016, the parties entered into a settlement agreement, and the case was dismissed.  

Latisse® III. In December 2014, Allergan and Duke University filed a complaint for declaratory judgment of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,906,962 (“‘962 Patent”) against Apotex. In January 2015, Allergan and Duke subsequently filed an amended complaint against Apotex to assert infringement of U.S. Patent Number 8,926,953 (“‘953 Patent”). In March 2015, Allergan and Duke filed a second amended complaint asserting only the ‘953 Patent. Apotex filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim with respect to the ‘953 Patent. On August 31, 2015, the court issued an order and judgment dismissing the case with prejudice in favor of Apotex, Sandoz and Akorn on all of Allergan’s claims alleging infringement of the ‘953 patent. In the Sandoz and Akorn matters, the court also declared and adjudged the ‘953 patent invalid as obvious, and collaterally estopped Allergan from asserting the ‘953 patent against Sandoz or Akorn or contesting the invalidity of the ‘953 patent. In late September, the court entered a final judgment that declared and adjudged claims 8, 23 and 26 of the ‘953 patent invalid as obvious and collaterally estopped Allergan from asserting claims 8, 23 and 26 of the ‘953 patent against Apotex and Akorn or contesting the invalidity of claims 8, 23 and 26 of the ‘953 patent. On September 30, 2015, Allergan filed a Notice of Appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On October 19, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal filed by Allergan. In March 2016, Allergan filed its opening brief. In June 2016, Akorn, Apotex, Hi-Tech and Sandoz filed their response brief. In July 2016, Allergan filed its reply brief. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patents at issue in this litigation, Allergan can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuit will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched.

 

Linzess®. In October 2016, the Company and Ironwood received Paragraph IV certification notice letters from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) indicating that it had submitted to FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of LINZESS® 145 mcg and 290 mcg capsules (“LINZESS”) before the expiration of the nine patents listed in the Orange Book, including U.S. Patent Nos. 7,304,036 (the “‘036 Patent”); 7,371,727 (the “‘727 Patent”); 7,704,947 (the “‘947 Patent”); 7,745,409 (the “‘409 Patent”); 8,080,526 (the “‘526 Patent”); 8,110,553 (the “‘553 Patent”); 8,748,573 (the “‘573 Patent”); 8,802,628 (the “‘628 Patent”); and 8,933,030 (the “‘030 Patent”). In October 2016, the Company and Ironwood also received Paragraph IV certification notice letters from Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”) indicating that it had submitted to FDA an ANDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of LINZESS before the expiration of the ‘573, ‘628 and ‘030 Patents. (The ‘727, ‘947, ‘409, ‘526 and ‘553 Patents expire in January 2024; the ‘036 Patent expires in August 2026; and the ‘573, ‘628 and ‘030 Patents expire in 2031.) Teva and Aurobindo claim that the patents discussed in their respective notice letters are invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed.  The Company is evaluating patent infringement actions in response to these ANDA filings.

Namenda XR®. Between January and October 2014, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. (collectively, “Forest”) and Merz Pharma and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Forest’s licensors for Namenda XR® (all collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought actions for infringement of some or all of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,061,703 (the “‘703 patent”), 8,039,009 (the “‘009 patent”), 8,168,209 (the “‘209 patent”), 8,173,708 (the “‘708 patent”), 8,283,379 (the “‘379 patent”), 8,329,752 (the “‘752 patent”), 8,362,085 (the “‘085 patent”), and 8,598,233 (the “‘233 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Wockhardt, Teva, Sun, Apotex, Anchen, Zydus, Watson, Par, Mylan, Amneal, Ranbaxy, and Amerigen, and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. These companies have notified Plaintiffs that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Namenda XR® before these certain patents expire. Including a 6-month pediatric extension of regulatory exclusivity, the ‘703 patent expires in October 2015, the ‘009 patent expires in September 2029, and the ‘209, ‘708, ‘379, ‘752, ‘085, and ‘233 patents expire in May 2026. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs that expires no earlier than June 2016 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Plaintiffs sooner). On June 11, 2014, Mylan filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, which the district court denied on March 30, 2015. On December 18, 2014, Ranbaxy filed an IPR before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, with respect to the ‘085 patent. Adamas filed a preliminary response on April 14, 2015. On May 1, 2015, Forest entered into a settlement agreement with Ranbaxy. On May 15, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board granted Adamas and Ranbaxy’s joint motion to terminate the case. On October 17, 2014, Forest and Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (f/k/a Watson Laboratories, Inc. — Florida) filed a stipulation dismissing their respective claims without prejudice. On November 3, 2014, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Wockhardt. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Wockhardt that will permit it to launch its generic version of Namenda XR® as of the date that is the later of (a) two (2) calendar months prior to the expiration date of the last to expire of the ‘703 patent, the ‘209 patent, the ‘708 patent, the ‘379 patent, the ‘752 patent, the ‘085 patent, and the ‘233 patent, including any extensions and/or pediatric exclusivities; or (b) the date that Wockhardt obtains final FDA approval of its ANDA, or earlier in certain circumstances. On January 13, 2015, Plaintiffs entered into settlement agreements with Anchen and Par. Under the terms of the settlement agreements, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiffs will provide licenses to Anchen and Par that will permit them to launch their generic versions of Namenda XR® as of the date that is the later of (a) two (2) calendar months prior to the expiration date of the last to expire of the ‘209 patent, the ‘708 patent, the ‘379 patent, the ‘752 patent, the ‘085 patent, and the ‘233 patent, as well as the ‘009 patent for Par only, including any extensions and/or pediatric exclusivities; or (b) the dates that Anchen and Par obtain final FDA approval of their respective ANDAs, or earlier in certain circumstances. On May 11, 2015, Forest entered into a settlement agreement with Sun. On August 18, 2015, Forest entered into a settlement agreement with Zydus. On September 9, 2015, Forest entered into a settlement agreement with Amneal. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Amneal that will permit it to launch its generic version of Namenda XR® beginning January 31, 2020, following receipt by Amneal of final approval from the FDA on its ANDA for generic Namenda XR®; or (b) under certain circumstances, Amneal has an option to launch an authorized generic version of Namenda XR® beginning on January 31, 2021. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Amerigen on October 20, 2015. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan on November 16, 2015. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Lupin on December 22, 2015. On January 5, 2016, the district court issued a claim construction ruling that included findings of indefiniteness as to certain claim terms in the asserted patents. On February 11, 2016, the Company settled with Apotex. Trial began on February 16, 2016 with the remaining defendant Teva with respect to the ‘009 patent. Post-trial briefing concluded on April 29, 2016.  The Parties have reached agreement on settlement with Teva subject to Court approval. In June 2016, after reaching an agreement to settle, the parties filed and the Court entered a judgment of infringement in favor of Plaintiffs and against Teva regarding the ‘009 patent. On July 26, 2016, the Court entered a final judgment of invalidity of claim 1 of the ‘209 patent, claims 1, 6, 10 and 15 of the ‘708 patent, claim 1 of the ‘379 patent, claims 1 and 9 of the ‘752 patent, claims 1 and 7 of the ‘085 patent and claim 1 of the ‘233 patent in favor of Teva. On August 23, 2016, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the actions involving Teva with respect to the district court’s January 5, 2016 claim construction opinion and order, and the July 26, 2016 final judgment of invalidity. On August 24, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docketed the appeal filed by the Company. The Company’s opening brief is due on December 8, 2016.  The Company believes that its arguments on appeal are substantial and meritorious.  On September 29, 2016, the Company issued a press release following announcement of ANDA approvals, including FDA final approval by Lupin.  If the district court ruling is upheld on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, there is a possibility that generic entry for Namenda XR could occur following an adverse decision. On October 9, 2015, the Company also brought an action for infringement of the ‘009, ‘209, ‘708, ‘379, ‘752, ‘085, and ‘233 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Accord Healthcare, Inc. and Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited (collectively, “Accord”). The Accord defendants have notified Plaintiffs that they have filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Namenda XR® before these patents expire. On January 14, 2016, Forest entered into a settlement agreement with Accord. On December 8, 2015, the Company also brought an action for infringement of the ‘209, ‘708, ‘379, ‘752, ‘085, and ‘233 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Panacea Biotec, Ltd. (“Panacea”). Panacea has notified Plaintiffs that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Namenda XR® before these patents expire. On May 17, 2016, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Panacea.

Namzaric®. On August 27, 2015, Forest Laboratories, LLC, Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. (collectively, “Forest”) and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (all collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought an action for infringement of some or all of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,039,009 (the “’009 patent”), 8,058,291 (the “‘291 patent”), 8,168,209 (the “‘209 patent”), 8,173,708 (the “‘708 patent”), 8,283,379 (the “‘379 patent”), 8,293,794 (the “‘794 patent”), 8,329,752 (the “‘752 patent”), 8,338,485 (the “‘485 patent”), 8,338,486 (the “‘486 patent”), 8,362,085 (the “‘085 patent”), 8,580,858 (the “‘858 patent”) and 8,598,233 (the “‘233 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. These companies have notified Plaintiffs that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Namzaric® before these certain patents expire. Including a 6-month pediatric extension of regulatory exclusivity, the ‘009 patent expires in September 2029, and the ‘209, ‘708, ‘379, ‘752, ‘085, and ‘233 patents expire in May 2026. The ‘291 patent expires in December 2029, and the ‘794, ‘485, ‘486, and ‘858 patents expire in November 2025. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs that expires no earlier than January 2018 (unless there is a final court decision adverse to Plaintiffs sooner). On October 23, 2015, the Company also brought an action for infringement of the ‘009, ‘291, ‘209, ‘708, ‘379, ‘794, ‘752, ‘485, ‘486, ‘085, ‘858 and ‘233 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amerigen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (collectively, “Amerigen”). The Amerigen defendants have notified Plaintiffs that they have filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Namzaric® before these certain patents expire. On January 5, 2016, the district court in the Namenda XR® patent litigations issued a claim construction ruling that included findings of indefiniteness as to certain claim terms in certain of the patents also asserted in the pending Namzaric® patent litigations. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Par on April 29, 2016. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Par that will permit it to launch its generic version of Namzaric® as of June 5, 2029, or earlier in certain circumstances. Trial is scheduled for October 2017. In June 2016, Forest filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add the ‘009 patent against Amneal, which the District Court granted on July 19, 2016. On May 20, 2016, the Company also brought an action for infringement of the ‘009, ‘291, ‘209, ‘708, ‘379, ‘794, ‘752, ‘485, ‘486, ‘085, ‘858 and ‘233 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Accord Healthcare Inc. USA and Intas Pharmaceuticals Limited (collectively, “Accord”). The Accord defendants have notified Plaintiffs that they have filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Namzaric® before these certain patents expire. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Accord on July 20, 2016. On August 30, 2016, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Amneal, who is believed to be a first applicant.  Under the terms of the agreement, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Amneal that will permit it to launch its generic version of Namzaric® as of January 1, 2025, or earlier in certain circumstances.  Alternatively, under certain circumstances, Amneal has an option to launch an authorized generic version of Namzaric beginning on January 1, 2026.  On October 21, 2016, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Amerigen, and the case was dismissed.  

Rapaflo®. On June 17, 2013, Actavis, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., (collectively, “Actavis”) and Kissei Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Kissei”) sued Hetero USA Inc., Hetero Labs Limited, and Hetero Labs Limited, Unit 3 (collectively, “Hetero”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that sales of silodosin tablets, a generic version of Actavis’ Rapaflo® tablets, would infringe U.S. Patent No. 5,387,603 (the “‘603 patent”). On June 17, 2013 Actavis and Kissei sued Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that sales of Sandoz’s generic version of Rapaflo® would infringe the ‘603 patent. The complaint seeks injunctive relief. On December 22, 2014 the Parties completed a settlement agreement with Hetero. Actavis and Kissei’s lawsuit against Sandoz have been consolidated and remain pending. Pursuant to the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the generic applicants prior to April 8, 2016. The Company believes it has meritorious claims to prevent the generic applicants from launching a generic version of Rapaflo®. However, if a generic applicant prevails in the pending litigation or launches a generic version of Rapaflo® before the pending litigation is finally resolved, it could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Restasis®. Between August and September 2015, Allergan brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,629,111 (the “‘111 patent”), 8,633,162 (the “‘162 patent”), 8,642,556 (the “‘556 patent”), 8,648,048 (the “‘048 patent”), and 8,685,930 (the “‘930 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Akorn, Inc., Apotex, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., InnoPharma, Inc., and Pfizer, Inc., and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. On September 14, 2015, Allergan brought an action for infringement of these patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InnoPharma, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc. These companies have notified Allergan that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Restasis® before these patents expire in August 2024. In the Texas actions the District Court granted joint motions to dismiss without prejudice Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Pfizer, Inc., on October 12 and October 22, 2015, respectively. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”) and InnoPharma, Inc. (“InnoPharma”) remain defendants in the respective actions. In October 2015, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Mylan, Inc. (“Mylan”) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, and for failure to state a claim as to Mylan, Inc.; Teva filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue; Apotex, Inc. and Apotex Corp. (“Apotex”) filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaim; Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”) filed an answer and counterclaim; and Teva filed an answer, counterclaim and motion to dismiss. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex on December 15, 2015. In December 2015, Allergan and Apotex filed a joint stipulation of dismissal and the U.S. District Court granted the Order with respect to the Apotex defendants. In January 2016, the Court scheduled a bench trial for August 29, 2017.

In February 2016, Allergan filed an amended complaint to include U.S. Patent Number 9,248,191 (the “’191 patent”). In February and March 2016, Allergan received Paragraph IV letters from Apotex, Mylan and Teva notifying Allergan that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Restasis® before the patents expire in August 2024, contending that the ‘191 patent is invalid and not infringed by their respective proposed generic products.

On March 1, 2016, Allergan received a Paragraph IV letter from Famy Care Limited (“Famy Care”) notifying Allergan that they have filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Restasis® before the patents expire in August 2024, contending that the ‘111 patent, the ʼ162 patent, the ‘556 patent, the ‘048 patent, the ‘930 patent, and the ‘191 patent are invalid and not infringed by their respective proposed generic products. In March 2016, the Court entered an order requesting supplemental briefs on the effect of the Federal Circuit’s Acorda decision (No. 2014-1456) on Teva’s and Mylan’s pending motions to dismiss. In their supplemental briefs, Teva acknowledged that, under the Acorda decision, it is subject to specific personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas and that venue is proper, and Mylan requested that the District Court refrain from taking action on its pending motion until after Mylan has sought panel and en banc rehearing in the Acorda action. In April 2016, the Court issued a memorandum and opinion denying Mylan’s and Teva’s motions to dismiss. On April 12, 2016, Allergan filed a complaint for infringement of the ʼ111 patent, ʼ162 patent, ʼ556 patent, ʼ048 patent, ʼ930 patent, and the ʼ191 patent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against Famy Care. In March and April 2016, Allergan filed answers to Teva, Akorn and InnoPharma’s counterclaims. On June 6, 2016, Famy Care filed an answer, affirmative defenses and counterclaims. In June 2016, Allergan filed a motion for consolidation and the Court entered an order consolidating the Famy Care matter, C.A. 2:16-cv-00401-WCB, into C.A. 2:15-cv-01455-WCB, (the “Lead” case).

On July 20, 2016, Allergan filed a complaint for infringement of the ʼ111 patent, ʼ162 patent, ʼ556 patent, ʼ048 patent, ʼ930 patent, and the ʼ191 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and, on July 21, 2016, a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and TWi Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“TWi”). TWi notified Allergan that it has filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Restasis® before these certain patents expire. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patents at issue in this litigation, Allergan can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuit will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched.

Restasis® IPR. On June 6, 2016, Allergan, Inc. (“Allergan”) received  notification letters that Inter Partes Review of the USPTO (“IPR”) petitions were filed by Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,629,111 (the “‘111 patent”), 8,633,162 (the “‘162 patent”), 8,642,556 (the “‘556 patent”), 8,648,048 (the “‘048 patent”), 8,685,930 (the “‘930 patent”), and 9,248,191 (the “‘191 patent”), which patents expire on August 27, 2024. Mylan filed the IPR petition on June 3, 2016. On June 23, 2016, Allergan received a notification letter that a IPR petition and motion for joinder was filed by Argentum Pharmaceuticals LLC (“Argentum”) regarding the ’111 patent.

Saphris®. Between September 2014 and May 2015, Forest Laboratories, LLC, and Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. (collectively, “Forest”) brought actions for infringement of some or all of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,763,476 (the “‘476 patent”), 7,741,358 (the “‘358 patent”) and 8,022,228 (the “‘228 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC, Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. Including a 6-month pediatric extension of regulatory exclusivity, the ‘476 patent expires in December 2020, and the ‘358 and ‘228 patents expire in October 2026. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs that expires no earlier than February 13, 2017 (unless a court issues a decision adverse to Forest sooner). On February 3, 2015, the District Court consolidated the then-pending actions for all purposes. On September 30, 2015, the District Court consolidated all pending actions. On March 28, 2016, the Court entered Forest and Hikma’s proposed joint stipulation and order of adverse judgment and dismissal of claims related to the ‘358 and ‘228 patents. In April 2016, the Court granted the proposed consent judgment of non-infringement and order of dismissal of counterclaims related to the ‘358 and ‘228 patents, as well as a stipulation and order with respect to infringement of Claims 1, 2, and 6 of the ʼ476 patent, between Plaintiffs and Breckenridge. The Court also granted the proposed stipulation of entry and proposed order of adverse judgment and dismissal of counterclaims related to the ʼ358 and ʼ228 patents between Plaintiffs and Sigmapharm. Trial is scheduled to begin in October 2016 with respect to the ‘476 patent, the only remaining patent-in-suit. In April, May and July 2016, the Court granted the proposed stipulations and orders of infringement of certain claims of the ‘476 patent as to Hikma, Breckenridge and Alembic. On October 13, 2016, the Court stayed trial as to Sigmapharm and extended the 30-month stay as to Sigmapharm.  Trial started on October 24, 2016.  The Company believes it has meritorious claims to prevent the generic applicants from launching a generic version of Saphris®. However, there can be no assurance a generic version will not be launched.

Savella®. Between September 2013 and February 2014, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd. (collectively, “Forest”) and Royalty Pharma Collection Trust (“Royalty”), Forest’s licensor for Savella®, brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,602,911 (the “‘911 patent”), 7,888,342 (the “‘342 patent”), and 7,994,220 (the “‘220 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Amneal, Apotex, First Time US Generics, Glenmark, Hetero, Lupin, Mylan, Par, Ranbaxy, and Sandoz, and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. These companies have notified Forest and Royalty that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Savella before these patents expire. (The ‘342 patent expires in November 2021, the ‘911 patent expires in January 2023, and the ‘220 patent expires in September 2029.) These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs until July 14, 2016 (unless a court issues a decision adverse to Forest and Royalty Pharma sooner). On March 7, 2014, Forest and Royalty voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice, all claims against Sandoz. On March 20, 2014, the district court consolidated all of the remaining pending actions for all purposes and issued a scheduling order setting a trial date in January 2016. On May 12, 2014, Forest and Royalty entered into a settlement agreement with First Time US Generics. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, and subject to review of the settlement terms by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Forest will provide a license to First Time that will permit it to launch its generic version of Savella® as of the date that is the later of (a) six (6) -calendar months prior to the expiration date of the last to expire of the ‘911 patent, the ‘342 patent, and the ‘220 patent, including any extensions and/or pediatric exclusivities; or (b) the date that First Time obtains final FDA approval of its ANDA, or earlier in certain circumstances. On December 15, 2014, Forest and Royalty entered into a settlement agreement with Ranbaxy. On April 8, 2015, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of standing. On or about April 29, 2015, Forest entered into a settlement agreement with Par that will permit Par to launch its generic version of Savella® as of the date that is the later of (a) six (6) calendar months prior to the expiration date of the last to expire of the ‘911 patent, the ‘342 patent, and the ‘220 patent, including any extensions and/or pediatric exclusivities; or (b) the date that Par obtains final FDA approval of its ANDA, or earlier in certain circumstances. On December 11, 2015, Forest and Royalty entered into settlement agreements with Hetero and Glenmark. On January 8, 2016, Forest and Royalty entered into a settlement agreement with Amneal. On January 19, 2016, Forest and Royalty entered into a settlement agreement with Apotex. The defendants under these agreements may enter the market as of March 19, 2026. A bench trial concluded on January 26, 2016. Post-trial briefing concluded on April 26, 2016. In June 2016, Forest and Royalty entered into a settlement agreement with Lupin. On July 11, 2016, the Court entered an order, opinion and judgment in favor of Plaintiffs and against Mylan, that Mylan infringes the asserted claims of the ‘911, ‘342 and ‘220 patents, and that the asserted claims of the ‘911, ‘342 and ‘220 patents are valid.  On August 9, 2016, Mylan filed a notice of appeal.  On September 30, 2016, Forest and Royalty entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan, and the appeal was dismissed.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, Mylan may enter the market as of March 19, 2026, or earlier under certain circumstances.

Teflaro®. In January 2015, Forest Laboratories, LLC, Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and Cerexa, Inc. (collectively, “Forest”) and Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (“Takeda”), Forest’s licensor for Teflaro®, brought an action for infringement of some or all of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,417,175 (the “‘175 patent”), 6,906,055 (the “‘055 patent”), 7,419,973 (the “‘973 patent”) and 8,247,400 (the “‘400 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Apotex and Sandoz, and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. These companies have notified Forest and Takeda that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Teflaro® before some or all of the ‘175, ‘055, ‘973 and ‘400 patents expire. (The ‘175 patent expires in April 2022, the ‘055 and ‘973 patents expire in December 2021, and the ‘400 patent expires in February 2031.) These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs until April 29, 2018 (unless a court issues a decision adverse to Forest and Takeda sooner). On June 24, 2015, the District Court issued a scheduling order setting a trial date in June 2017.

In April 2016, Forest filed a complaint for infringement of the ʼ175 patent in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Apotex. Apotex had notified Forest and Takeda that they have filed an ANDA with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Teflaro® before the ʼ175 patent expires in April 2022. This lawsuit triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDA with respect to the ’175 patent until September 8, 2018 (unless a court issues a decision adverse to Forest and Takeda sooner). In May 2016, Apotex filed an answer and counterclaim as to the ‘175 patent and Forest filed an answer to Apotex’s counterclaims. On June 14, 2016, Allergan filed a motion for consolidation and the Court entered an order consolidating C.A. 1:16-cv-00269-GMS, into C.A. 1:15-cv-00018-GMS, (the “Lead” case). On July 27, 2016, Forest and Takeda dismissed the ‘055 and ‘973 patents with respect to Sandoz.  On August 5, 2016, Forest and Takeda dismissed the ‘175 patent as to Sandoz, leaving the ‘400 patent as the only patent asserted against Sandoz.  The ‘175 patent and the ‘400 patent are still asserted against Apotex.  While the company intends to vigorously defend the patents at issue in this litigation, Forest can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuit will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched.

Viibryd®. In March 2015, Forest Laboratories, LLC, Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., (collectively, “Forest”) and Merck KGaA and Merck Patent Gesellschaft Mit Beschränkter Haftung (collectively, “Merck”), Forest’s licensor for Viibryd, brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,834,020 (the “‘020 patent”), 8,193,195 (the “‘195 patent”), 8,236,804 (the “‘804 patent”) and 8,673,921 (the “‘921 patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Accord Healthcare Inc. (“Accord”), Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Alembic”), Apotex, Inc. (“Apotex”), InvaGen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“InvaGen”), and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof. These companies have notified Forest and/or Merck that they have filed ANDAs with the FDA seeking to obtain approval to market generic versions of Viibryd before the ‘020, ‘195, ‘804 and ‘921 patents expire in June 2022. These lawsuits triggered an automatic stay of approval of the applicable ANDAs until July 21, 2018 (unless a court issues a decision adverse to Forest and Merck sooner). On August 24, 2015, the District Court consolidated the actions for all purposes and issued a scheduling order setting a trial date in January 2018. On November 23, 2015, Forest and Merck brought an action for infringement of the ‘020, ‘195, ‘804 and ‘921 patents in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against InvaGen, which matter was consolidated with the earlier-filed action against InvaGen. While the Company intends to vigorously defend the patents at issue in this litigation, Forest can offer no assurance as to whether the lawsuit will be successful and that a generic version will not be launched.

Product Liability Litigation

Actonel® Litigation. Warner Chilcott is a defendant in approximately 171 cases and a potential defendant with respect to approximately 374  unfiled claims involving a total of approximately 554 plaintiffs and potential plaintiffs relating to Warner Chilcott’s bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel®. The claimants allege, among other things, that Actonel® caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw (“ONJ”), a rare but serious condition that involves severe loss or destruction of the jawbone, and/or atypical fractures of the femur (“AFF”). All of the cases have been filed in either federal or state courts in the United States. Warner Chilcott is in the initial stages of discovery in these litigations. In addition, Warner Chilcott is aware of four purported product liability class actions that were brought against Warner Chilcott in provincial courts in Canada alleging, among other things, that Actonel® caused the plaintiffs and the proposed class members who ingested Actonel® to suffer atypical fractures or other side effects. It is expected that these plaintiffs will seek class certification. Plaintiffs have typically asked for unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees. Warner Chilcott is indemnified by Sanofi for certain Actonel claims pursuant to a collaboration agreement relating to the two parties’ co-promotion of the product in the United States and other countries. In addition, Warner Chilcott is also partially indemnified by the Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) for ONJ claims that were pending at the time Warner Chilcott acquired P&G’s global pharmaceutical business in October 2009. In May and September 2013, Warner Chilcott entered into two settlement agreements that resolved a majority of the then-existing ONJ-related claims which are subject to the acceptance by the individual respective claimants.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and intends to defend these claims vigorously. Warner Chilcott maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Benicar® Litigation. The Company is named in approximately 1,740 actions involving allegations that Benicar®, a treatment for hypertension that Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008, caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under Forest’s Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending us in these lawsuits.

Celexa®/Lexapro® Litigation. Forest and its affiliates are defendants in approximately 179 actions alleging that Celexa® or Lexapro® caused various birth defects. Several of the cases involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these actions have been consolidated in state court in Missouri where one case is set for trial in May 2017. There are also four matters pending in state court in New Jersey where one case is set for trial in February 2017.  There are birth defect cases pending in other jurisdictions, none of which are set for trial. 

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the Celexa®/Lexapro® cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Testosterone Litigation. Beginning in 2014, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain of its affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of testosterone products, for personal injuries including but not limited to cardiovascular events allegedly arising out of the use of Androderm®testosterone cypionate, AndroGel and/or testosterone enanthate. Actavis, Inc. and/or one or more of its subsidiaries have been served in approximately 547 currently pending actions, one of which is pending in state courts and the remainder of which are pending in federal court. The federal court actions have been consolidated in an MDL in federal court in Illinois. The defendants have responded to the plaintiffs’ master complaint in the MDL. Plaintiffs have dismissed all claims relating to any of Actavis’ generic TRT products from the cases. These cases are in the initial stages and discovery is ongoing. The Company anticipates that additional suits will be filed. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Government Investigations, Government Litigation and Qui Tam Litigation

Forest. Forest received a subpoena dated August 5, 2013 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General. The subpoena requests documents relating to the marketing and promotion of Bystolic®, Savella®, and Namenda®, including with respect to speaker programs for these products. In February 2014, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin unsealed a qui tam complaint. The complaint asserts claims under the False Claims Act and contains allegations regarding off-label promotion of Bystolic® and Savella® and “kickbacks” provided to physicians to induce prescriptions of Bystolic®, Savella®, and Viibryd®. Forest moved to dismiss the complaint. On January 6, 2015, the court granted Forest’s motion to dismiss the complaint. On February 5, 2016, the relator filed a second amended complaint. The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to intervene in this action but has reserved the right to do so at a later date. On February 23 and 24, 2016, the parties participated in a non-binding mediation. As a result of the mediation, a framework now exists for the parties to reach an agreement to settle this matter. The settlement, if approved, would include the dismissal of the action pending in federal court in Wisconsin.  The Company has recorded a contingent liability for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 under ASC 450, Contingencies, based on its analysis of this matter, however, there can be no assurance that the Company’s estimate will not differ materially from the recorded contingent liability.  The Company continues to cooperate with this investigation and to discuss these issues with the government.

Forest received a subpoena, dated April 29, 2015, from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General (“OIG”). The subpoena requests documents relating to Average Manufacturer (“AMP”) and Best Price calculations for several of its products. Subsequently, Forest received a Civil Investigative Demand from the OIG, dated August 16, 2016 primarily related to the calculation of Best Price. The Company is cooperating fully with the OIG’s requests.

In April 2014, the federal district court in Massachusetts unsealed a qui tam complaint which asserts claims under the False Claims Act and contains allegations regarding off-label promotion of Namenda®. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the relator’s Second Amended Complaint and the court granted in part and denied in part Forest’s motion, dismissing the False Claims Act conspiracy claim only. On October 7, 2016, the Company filed a second motion to dismiss the relator’s Second Amended Complaint based on newly discovered evidence.  The U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to intervene in this action but has reserved the right to do so at a later date.  The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this litigation. However, this case is in the early stages, it is impossible to predict with certain the outcome of this case, and the Company can offer no assurance as to when the lawsuit will be decided, whether the Company will be successful in its defense and whether any additional similar suits will be filed. If this claim is successful, such claim could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition, results of operation and cash flows.

Forest and certain of its affiliates are defendants in three state court actions pending in Illinois, Utah and Wisconsin involving qui tam actions alleging generally that the plaintiffs (all government agencies) were overcharged for their share of Medicaid drug reimbursement costs. Discovery is ongoing in these actions.  Forest and the other defendants filed a motion to dismiss Utah’s amended complaint. This motion to dismiss was denied in part, and discovery is proceeding. On February 17, 2014, the Wisconsin state court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. However, the relator filed a separate action making the same basic allegations as in its amended complaint in the original action. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend against these actions. At this time, the Company does not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on the results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

On December 28, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed in state court in Pennsylvania on behalf of a putative class of private payers. Defendants removed the complaint to the federal court in Pennsylvania.  The complaint alleges that manufacturers of generic drugs including a subsidiary of Forest Laboratories, Inc. that in the past had marketed generic products, caused plaintiffs to overpay for prescription drug products through the use of inflated AWPs. The complaint alleges violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, negligent misrepresentation/fraud, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and aiding and abetting. Defendants removed this action to the federal court in Pennsylvania under the Class Action Fairness Act. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 29, 2016.  On May 3, 2016, the court issued an order staying all deadlines in this action.  An additional complaint then was filed in state court in Pennsylvania on behalf an individual indirect purchaser containing similar allegations to the class complaint.  

With regard to the remaining drug pricing actions, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in those actions. The Company continually monitors the status of these actions and may settle or otherwise resolve some or all of these matters on terms that the Company deems to be in its best interests. However, the Company can give no assurance that it will be able to settle the remaining actions on terms it deems reasonable, or that such settlements or adverse judgments in the remaining actions, if entered, will not exceed the amounts of the liability reserves. Additional actions by other states, cities and/or counties are anticipated. These actions and/or the actions described above, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Allergan. In December 2011, the federal district court in Pennsylvania issued an order partially unsealing the second amended qui tam complaint, filed by relators Herbert J. Nevyas, M.D. and Anita Nevyas-Wallace, M.D., to be informally provided to Allergan, Inc. The complaint asserts claims under Federal and State False Claims Acts and Federal and State Anti-Kickback Acts. On December 16, 2013, the court entered an order to unseal this qui tam action. On April 1, 2014, Allergan filed a motion to dismiss. On May 26, 2015, the court issued a ruling granting, in part, the motion to dismiss and denying it in part. Allergan filed an answer to the remaining claims on June 25, 2015. On July 7, 2015, the court scheduled trial in this matter for October 31, 2016.  In May 2016, the parties reached a settlement, which remains subject to approval by various Federal and State agencies.

On November 25, 2014, prior to the completion of its merger with Actavis plc (“Actavis”), Allergan, Inc. received a request for documents and information from the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) related to Actavis or Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Salix”).  On June 30, 2015, Allergan, Inc. received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents related to Actavis or Salix.  On June 30, 2015, Actavis received a subpoena from the SEC requesting documents related to Allergan.  In January 2016, the SEC began meeting with current and former employees of Allergan and Actavis and indicated that its review focused on the content of Allergan, Inc.’s disclosures during the pendency of the tender offer by Valeant Pharmaceuticals International for Allergan, Inc.’s common stock. The company is cooperating fully with the SEC in responding to the subpoena.

The Company and its affiliates are involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

 

Teva Assumed Liabilities

The following matter was assumed by Teva as part of the completion of the divestiture of the Anda Distribution business to Teva on October 3, 2016.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Litigation. A putative class action complaint against Anda, Inc. (“Anda”), a subsidiary of the Company, was filed in Missouri state court alleging claims for conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. An amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members’ paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff’s filed a motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008 but the court vacated the class certification hearing until the FCC Petition, described in more detail below, was addressed. On May 1, 2012, a separate action was filed in federal court in Florida, purportedly on behalf of the “end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent.” On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The parties filed a joint motion to stay the action pending the resolution of the FCC Petition which the court granted.

In a related matter, in November 2010 Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring “opt-out” language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the “FCC Petition”). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau’s dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC did not rule on the application for review. On June 27, 2013, Forest filed a Petition for Declaratory Ruling with the FCC requesting that the FCC find that (1) the faxes at issue in the action complied, or substantially complied with the FCC regulation, and thus did not violate it, or (2) the FCC regulation was not properly promulgated under the TCPA. On January 31, 2014, the FCC issued a Public Notice seeking comment on several other recently-filed petitions, all similar to the one Anda filed in 2010. On October 30, 2014, the FCC issued a final order on the FCC Petition granting Anda and several other petitioners a retroactive waiver of the opt-out notice requirement for all faxes sent with express consent. The litigation plaintiffs, who had filed comments on the January 2014 Public Notice, have appealed the final order to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Anda and other petitioners have moved to intervene in the appeal seeking review of that portion of the FCC final order addressing the statutory basis for the opt out/express consent portion of the regulation.