Commitments & Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments & Contingencies	NOTE 15 — 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 March 31, 2020, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of approximately $255.0 million. As of December 31, 2019, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet included accrued loss contingencies of approximately $1,190.0 million. 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. In matters involving the assertion or defense of the Company’s intellectual property, the Company believes it has meritorious claims and intends to vigorously assert or defend the patents or other intellectual property at issue in such litigation. Similarly, in matters where the Company is a defendant, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, the Company can offer no assurances that it will be successful in a litigation or, in the case of patent enforcement matters, that a generic version of the product at issue will not be launched or enjoined. Failing to prevail in a litigation 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. Intellectual Property Litigation Patent Enforcement Matters Bystolic^®. On July 2, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Ajanta Pharma Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, “Ajanta”) in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA by Ajanta seeking approval to market a generic version of Bystolic^® and challenging said patent. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Ajanta on December 17, 2019, and the case was dismissed on January 2, 2020. Combigan^®. On October 30, 2017, subsidiaries of the Company filed an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Number 9,770,453 (the “‘453 Patent”) against Sandoz, Inc. and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (“Sandoz”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in connection with the abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Sandoz and Alcon, seeking approval to market a generic version of Combigan^®. On March 6, 2018, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,907,801 (the “‘801 Patent”) and 9,907,802 (the “‘802 Patent”) were added to the case. The ‘453, ‘801 and ‘802 Patents are listed in the Orange Book for Combigan^® and expire on April 19, 2022. On July 13, 2018, the district court adopted Allergan’s proposed claim construction and granted Allergan’s motion for preliminary injunction against Sandoz. On August 1, 2018, the district court entered an order setting a preliminary injunction bond in the amount of $157,300,000 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which Allergan posted. Sandoz appealed the grant of the injunction. On August 29, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction against Sandoz. A mandate issued on October 7, 2019. On January 8, 2020, the district court entered a scheduling order. Trial is expected to occur in Q2 2021, on a date to be determined by the court. Fetzima^®. In October and November 2017, subsidiaries of the Company and Pierre Fabre Medicament S.A.S. brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE43,879 (the “‘879 Patent”); 8,481,598 (the “‘598 Patent”); and 8,865,937 (the “‘937 Patent”) against MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “MSN”), Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. and Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC (collectively, “Prinston”), Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Torrent”), West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. (collectively, “West-Ward”), Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (“Zydus”), Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma Limited (collectively, “Aurobindo”), and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (collectively, “Amneal”), in connection with abbreviated new drug applications, respectively filed with the FDA by MSN, Prinston, Torrent, West-Ward, Zydus, Aurobindo, and Amneal, each seeking approval to market generic versions of Fetzima® and challenging said patents. The ‘879 Patent expires in June 2023 (not including a pending application for patent term extension (“PTE”)), the ‘598 patent expires in March 2031, and the ‘937 Patent expires in May 2032. Fact discovery is completed. Trial is expected to begin in August 2020, subject to the Court’s availability. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Amneal on December 18, 2018, and the case as against Amneal was dismissed. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Prinston on June 6, 2019, and the case as against Prinston was dismissed. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited (f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, respectively) on February 20, 2020. In April 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Pierre Fabre Medicament S.A.S. brought an action for infringement of the ‘879, ‘598 and ‘937 Patents against Micro Labs Ltd. and Micro Labs USA, Inc. (“Micro”) in connection with Micro’s abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of Fetzima^® and challenging said patents. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Micro Labs on October 22, 2019 and the case was dismissed. In December 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Pierre Fabre Medicament S.A.S. brought an action for infringement of the ‘879, ‘598 and ‘937 Patents against Torrent in connection with the same numbered Torrent abbreviated new drug application that was at issue in the action filed by Plaintiffs in 2017. Fact discovery is scheduled to close in November 2020. No trial date has been set. Juvéderm^®. On February 26, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company filed an amended complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,450,475 (the “‘475 Patent”), 8,357,795 (the “‘795 Patent”), 8,822,676 (the “‘676 Patent”), 9,089,519 (the “‘519 Patent”), 9,238,013 (the “‘013 Patent”) and 9,358,322 (the “‘322 Patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Prollenium US Inc. and Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Prollenium”). The amended complaint seeks, among other things, a judgment that Defendants have infringed these patents by making, selling, offering to sell, and importing Prollenium’s Revanesse® Versa+TM products within and into the United States. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for Defendants’ infringement. Trial is scheduled for June 14, 2021. On April 13, 2020, Prollenium filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions that were filed by Prollenium with respect to the asserted patents and instituted by the USPTO in March and April 2020. On January 23, 2020, subsidiaries of the Company filed a complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,391,202 (the “‘202 Patent”), and 10,485,896 (the “‘896 Patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Prollenium. The complaint seeks, among other things, a judgment that Defendants have infringed these patents by making, selling, offering to sell, and importing Prollenium’s Revanesse® Versa+TM products within and into the United States. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for Defendants’ infringement. On April 13, 2020, Prollenium filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions that were filed by Prollenium with respect to patents asserted in the earlier-filed action and instituted by the USPTO in March and April 2020. Juvéderm^® IPR. In August, September and October 2019, Prollenium US Inc. (“Prollenium”) submitted Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions to the USPTO regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,450,475 (the “‘475 Patent), 9,238,013 (the “‘013 patent”), 9,358,322 (the “‘322 patent”), 8,822,676 (the “‘676 patent”), 8,357,795 (the “‘795 patent”) and 9,089,519 (the “‘519 patent”). Prollenium’s IPR petitions seek review of all claims of the ‘013, ‘322, 676, and ‘519 patents, claims 1-9, 18, and 27-37 of the ‘475 patent, and claims 1-11, 22, 26-39, and 40-41 of the ‘795 patent. Patent owner’s preliminary responses for these petitions are due on December 19, 2019, or later. The Company filed patent owner's preliminary responses in December 2019 and January 2020 for petitions related to the ‘475, ‘013, ‘322, ‘676, ‘795, and ‘519 patents. On January 17, 2020, Prollenium filed a consolidated reply to the patent owner's preliminary responses with respect to the ‘475, ‘013, ‘322, ‘676, and ‘795 patents, and on January 24, 2020, the Company filed a consolidated sur-reply. In March and April 2020, the USPTO issued decisions granting institution of the IPRs filed by Prollenium. Oral argument, if requested, is scheduled in January 2021. Latisse^® IV. In December 2016, Sandoz announced the U.S. market launch of its generic copy of Latisse^®. In July 2017, subsidiaries of the Company and Duke University (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Number 9,579,270 (“‘270 Patent”) against Defendants Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (“Alcon”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX). The ‘270 patent expires in January 2021. In their complaint, Plaintiffs seek, among other things, a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ‘270 patent by making, selling, and offering to sell, and/or importing, their generic copy of Latisse^® within the United States. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for Defendants’ infringement. On April 3, 2018, the EDTX court issued an order, among other things, severing Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants and transferring Plaintiff’s claims against Alcon to the District Court of Delaware and Plaintiff’s claims against Sandoz to the District of Colorado. On October 5, 2018, the Delaware District Court entered an order dismissing the Delaware action against Alcon. On September 18, 2019, the District of Colorado denied Sandoz’s motion for summary judgment. Discovery is closed in the District of Colorado case and a trial date has not yet been set. Linzess^®. Beginning in November 2016 subsidiaries of the Company and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought multiple actions for infringement of some or all of 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”) against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”), Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) and Sun Pharma Global FZE (“Sun”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Teva, Aurobindo, Mylan, Sandoz and Sun, each seeking approval to market generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg capsules and challenging some or all of said patents (“November 2016 Action”). 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. In the November 2016 Action, expert discovery has been completed. On May 31, 2019, due to a scheduling conflict, the bench trial set for June 2019 was postponed to January 7, 2020. On October 20, 2017, November 30, 2017 and January 20, 2018, Plaintiffs brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,708,371 (the “‘371 Patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva, Mylan and Sandoz, respectively. The ‘371 Patent expires in 2033. The ‘371 patent actions have been consolidated with the November 2016 Action. On February 2, 2018 and March 29, 2018, Plaintiffs brought actions for infringement of some or all of the ‘036, ‘727, ‘947, ‘409, ‘526, ‘553, ‘030 and ‘371 Patents against Teva and Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Teva and Mylan, each seeking approval to market generic versions generic versions of Linzess^® 72 mcg capsules (“72 mcg ANDA”) before the expiration said patents. The district court consolidated the 72 mcg ANDA actions with the November 2016 Action. In May and August 2018, the district court granted joint stipulations and orders to dismiss without prejudice all claims, counterclaims, and defenses in the November 2016 Action with respect to the ‘371 Patent and the ‘030 Patent, respectively, as between Plaintiffs, Teva, Mylan and Sandoz. On September 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as to Mylan to assert the ‘628 patent against Mylan’s 72 mcg ANDA product. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Sun and certain Sun affiliates and the case against Sun was dismissed on January 18, 2018. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Aurobindo and the case against Aurobindo was dismissed on May 7, 2018. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan and the case against Mylan was dismissed on December 27, 2018. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Mylan to market its generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg in the United States beginning on February 5, 2030 (subject to FDA approval), and its generic version of Linzess^® 72 mcg in the United States beginning on August 5, 2030, or earlier in certain circumstances. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Sandoz on January 3, 2020, and the cases against Sandoz were dismissed on January 7, 2020. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Sandoz to market its generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg in the United States beginning on February 5, 2030 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier in certain circumstances. On January 17, 2020, upon the parties' request, the district court dismissed without prejudice the litigations relating only to Teva's 72 mcg version of Linzess^®. Plaintiffs had asserted patents against Teva's 72 mcg ANDA, the last of which expires in 2026, subject to possible pediatric extension. Prior to the dismissal, Teva had stipulated to infringement of certain claims of those patents. On January 21, 2020, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Teva and the remaining case against Teva was dismissed. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Teva to market its generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg in the United States beginning on March 31, 2029 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier in certain circumstances. This settlement does not grant any license to Teva with regard to its 72 mcg generic version of Linzess^®. Saphris^®. Between September 2014 and May 2015, subsidiaries of the Company 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”) against Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC (“Sigmapharm”), Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Hikma”), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge”), Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Alembic”) and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Amneal”), and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with an abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with FDA by Sigmapharm, Hikma, Breckenridge, Alembic and Amneal, each seeking approval to market a generic versions of Saphris^® and challenging each of said patents. 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. In 2016, the parties agreed to dismiss all claims related to the ‘358 and ‘228 patents, leaving only the ‘476 patent at issue. On October 13, 2016, the court stayed trial as to Sigmapharm and extended the 30-month stay as to Sigmapharm. On June 30, 2017, the district court issued an opinion and order finding all asserted claims of the ‘476 patent valid, that claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 were infringed by Alembic, Amneal, Breckenridge and Hikma, and that claims 4, 9 and 10 were not infringed by Alembic and Breckenridge. On July 11, 2017, the district court entered a final judgment that ordered, among other things, that Alembic’s, Amneal’s, Breckenridge’s and Hikma’s respective ANDAs not be granted final approval by FDA earlier than the date of expiration of the ‘476 patent inclusive of any applicable adjustments, extensions or exclusivities. On March 14, 2019, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s July 2017 judgment that claims 1 and 4 are not invalid and remanded for the district court to consider a fact question and its impact on the obviousness analysis. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to this issue, which was denied on May 15, 2019. In its March 14, 2019 order, the Federal Circuit also vacated the judgment of non-infringement of claims 4, 9 and 10 as to Alembic and Breckenridge and remanded for the district court to consider their infringement under a revised claim construction. In a joint stipulation entered by the district court on November 5, 2019, Alembic stipulated that its ANDA infringed claims 4, 9 and 10 of the '476 patent. On December 17, 2019, the district court entered a schedule for briefing on the remanded issues. Oral argument is currently scheduled for June 9, 2020. A separate bench trial concerning Sigmapharm’s infringement of claim 1 of the ‘476 patent began on June 20, 2018, and on November 16, 2018, the court held that Sigmapharm’s proposed ANDA product would infringe claim 1 of the ‘476 patent On November 26, 2018, Sigmapharm sought relief from the November 16, 2018 decision. On November 30, 2018, the Company moved for entry of final judgment. On August 6, 2019, the district court denied Sigmapharm’s motion to reconsider its November 2018 Order, and denied without prejudice the Company’s motion for entry of final judgment. On August 22, 2019, the district court entered Plaintiffs and Sigmapharm’s stipulated final judgment finding that Sigmapharm infringed claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘476 patent and ordering, among other things, that Sigmapharm’s ANDA be converted to tentative approval and not be granted final approval by FDA earlier than the date of expiration of the ‘476 patent inclusive of any applicable adjustments, extensions or exclusivities. Viberzi^®. On September 6, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,741,356 ("the '356 patent"), 7,786,158 ("the '158 patent"), 8,344,011 ("the '011 patent"), 8,609,709 ("the '709 patent"), 8,772,325 ("the '325 patent"), 9,205,076 ("the '076 patent"), 9,700,542 ("the '542 patent"), and 10,213,415 ("the '415 patent") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, “Aurobindo”) in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA by Aurobindo seeking approval to market a generic version of Viberzi^® and challenging said patents. Trial has been scheduled for May 2, 2022. On September 13, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company brought an action for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,691,860 ("the '860 patent"), 9,115,091 ("the '091 patent"), 9,364,489 ("the '489 patent"), 9,675,587 ("the '587 patent"), 9,789,125 ("the '125 patent"), and 10,188,632 ("the '632 patent") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, “Aurobindo”), Alkem Laboratories Limited (“Alkem”), Hetero Labs Limited and Hetero USA Inc. (collectively, “Hetero”), MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “MSN”), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Sun”), and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (“Zydus”) in connection with abbreviated new drug applications, respectively filed with the FDA by Aurobindo, Alkem, Hetero, MSN, Sun and Zydus, each seeking approval to market generic versions of Viberzi® and challenging said patents. Trial has been scheduled for May 2, 2022. Vraylar^®. On December 20, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Gedeon Richter Plc. brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,737,142 ("the '142 patent"), and 7,943,621 ("the '621 patent") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharma Global FZE (collectively, "Sun"), Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, "Aurobindo"), and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, "Zydus") in connection with abbreviated new drug applications, respectively filed with the FDA by Sun, Aurobindo, and Zydus, seeking approval to market generic versions of Vraylar^® and challenging said patents. No trial date or case schedule has been set. Trade Secret Matters Botulinum Neurotoxin ITC Investigation. On January 30, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Medytox Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Daewoong Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Daewoong Co., Ltd., and Evolus Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) requesting the ITC commence an investigation with respect to the Respondents’ importation into the United States of Respondents’ botulinum neurotoxin products, including DWP-450 (also known as Jeuveau^TM), which Complainants assert were developed, made and/or imported using Medytox’s trade secrets. Complainants seek, among other things, a permanent exclusionary order and cease and desist orders covering Respondents’ botulinum neurotoxin products, including DWP-450/Jeuveau^TM. On February 28, 2019, the ITC instituted an investigation into Respondents’ botulinum neurotoxin products, including DWP-450/Jeuveau^TM. Fact and expert discovery is closed and a hearing was held in early February 2020. Post-hearing briefing was completed on February 28, 2020. The target date for completion of the investigation is October 6, 2020. Trademark Enforcement Matters Juvéderm^®. On April 5, 2017, a subsidiary of the Company brought an action for unfair competition, false advertising, dilution, conspiracy and infringement of Allergan’s Juvéderm^® trademarks in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Dermavita Limited Partnership (“Dermavita”), Dima Corp. S.A. (“Dima Corp.”) and KBC Media Relations LLC (“KBC”). Dima Corp. had previously announced its acquisition of a license from Dermavita to develop and market in the U.S. cosmetic products under the Juvederm trademark. During June 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with KBC. During July 2017, the Court preliminarily enjoined Dima Corp. from, inter alia, promoting or selling within the United States any product bearing the trademark Juvéderm^® or any other trademark confusingly similar to it. During January 2018, the Court granted Dermavita’s renewed motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint based on purported lack of personal jurisdiction. During January 2019, the Company subsidiary and Dima Corp. resolved the action and the Court entered a permanent injunction and final judgment in favor of the Company subsidiary and against Dima Corp. for trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution and false advertising. Subsidiaries of the Company requested a preliminary injunction against Dermavita, Dima Corp, Aesthetic Services & Development, Jacqueline Sillam and Dimitri Sillam in the High Court of Paris, France. During June 2017, the Paris Court preliminarily enjoined the above-listed defendants, inter alia, to refrain from promoting or selling in France its Juvederm products, to transfer various domain names and to pay provisional damages to Allergan, on the basis that such use would infringe Allergan’s EU and French Juvéderm^® trademarks and would amount to unfair competition. This injunction has become final. During July 2018, the Paris Court ordered Dermavita, Dima Corp, Aesthetic Services & Development to pay more than 75,000 Euros in liquidated damages for violation of the preliminary injunction mentioned above. On February 2020, the Paris Court preliminarily enjoined newly-added defendants Lazeo, My Cream Lab, Vital Esthetique and Juvederm Elite Clinics, inter alia, to refrain from promoting or selling in the EU its Juvederm products and to pay provisional damages to the Company. A subsidiary of the Company has also filed against Dermavita, Dima Corp. and others a full action of trademark infringement in the Paris court. Dermavita has submitted two requests that the full action be stayed pending the outcome of the Nanterre action and the EUIPO trademark proceedings, both mentioned below. The Paris court rejected both of Dermavita’s stay requests. Furthermore, Dermavita filed an action against subsidiaries of the Company in the Nanterre, France court alleging that the subsidiaries have not used its Juvéderm trademark and requesting the court to revoke the Company’s trademark based on its purported lack of use or purportedly invalid license and assignment agreements. On February 21, 2019, the Nanterre Court ruled in the Company’s favor, holding that the license and assignment agreements were valid and that Allergan has used its trademark in commerce. Dermavita has appealed this decision. Dermavita has filed another action against subsidiaries of the Company in the Paris court requesting the court to declare that a trademark license agreement and trademark assignment agreement between subsidiaries of the Company are invalid and/or fraudulent. The case is still ongoing. On January 22, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company brought a related action for infringement of the Company’s Juvéderm^®trademarks against Aesthetic Services and Development Limited, Juvederm Elite Clinics SARL and Jamal Hamadi in the (UK) High Court of Justice. The case is still ongoing. Furthermore, more than 150 trademark opposition and cancellation actions between Allergan and Dermavita have been filed in front of the USPTO, EUIPO and various other national and regional trademark offices around the world. Most of these actions remain pending; however, Allergan has received favorable decisions in more than thirty (30) such actions. Antitrust Litigation Loestrin^® 24 Litigation. Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits related to Loestrin^® 24 Fe, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages in the billions of dollars which, if plaintiffs are successful, are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws. The court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ class certification motion but had not decided the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ class motion. Summary judgement motions were fully briefed, and oral arguments were held in September 2019. Trial in this action was scheduled to begin in January 2020. The parties reached agreements with each group of plaintiffs that, taken together, will resolve this litigation in its entirety. Based on the settlements with the plaintiffs, the Company booked an accrual of $302,500,000. The direct and indirect purchaser settlement agreements remain subject to final court approval. Namenda^® Litigation. In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda® in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda^® XR. The district court granted the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties in that case then reached a settlement to resolve the dispute. Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter, putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers in the same federal court. 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 a Company subsidiary and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws. The court had denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the direct purchaser action, certified the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs and set a trial date for October 28, 2019. Prior to the start of the trial, the parties in the direct purchaser class action reached an agreement in principle to settle that litigation for $750,000,000. The agreement, which contains no admission of liability, remains subject to final court approval. Restasis^® Competitor Litigation. Shire, which offers the dry-eye disease drug Xiidra^®, sued subsidiaries of the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that defendants unlawfully harmed competition by foreclosing Xiidra^® from sales to Medicare Part D plans (and the members of such plans) through the use of discounts (a) contingent on Restasis® receiving preferential formulary treatment; and/or (b) across a bundle of Allergan’s products, including Restasis^®. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages under federal and state law. The court issued a decision on March 22, 2019 granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 25, 2019, Shire filed an amended complaint. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. At the request of the parties, the court entered an Order on June 28, 2019, staying the action through December 27, 2019. The stay was extended through February 18, 2020 during which time the parties reached an agreement in principal to settle this litigation Restasis^® Class Action Litigation. Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis^® alleging that subsidiaries of the company harmed competition by engaging in conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of Restasis^® in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. All plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the billions of dollars which, if plaintiffs are successful are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws, as well as declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Trial in this action is scheduled to begin in April 2020. Recently, the Company reached agreements to settle the claims asserted by all direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company has taken a reserve of $78,800,000 for these settlements. The Company intends to vigorously defend its conduct and the patents or other intellectual property at issue in what remains of this litigation. Commercial Litigation Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices. A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain products. The court recently granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Following the dismissal of the action in federal court, plaintiffs recently filed a nearly identical complaint in state court in New Jersey. On March 27, 2020, the state court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Generic Drug Pricing Securities and ERISA Litigation. Putative classes of shareholders and two individual opt-out plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading statements between February 2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company’s internal controls over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the court denied the motion in a ruling on August 6, 2019. The parties are now engaging in discovery in these cases. In addition, class action complaints have been filed premised on the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities litigation but that assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). These complaints have been consolidated in the district court in New Jersey. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss this complaint. The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Litigation. The Company has been named as a defendant, along with several other manufacturers and distributors of opioid products, in over 2,000 matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers and additional suits have been filed. The lawsuits allege generally that the manufacturer defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote their products in violation of state laws and seek unspecified monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these suits include states, political subdivisions of states (i.e., counties and municipalities), Native American tribes and other private litigants such as insurance plans, hospital systems and consumers who were prescribed opioid products and were subsequently treated for an overdose or addiction. Cases are pending in both federal and state courts. The federal court cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Company recently reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the first case that is set for trial in the MDL proceeding. To the Company’s knowledge, it was one of the first defendants in the MDL proceeding to reach a settlement with the plaintiffs and that settlement is among the lowest of all the settlements that have been announced to date in that consolidated action. While not directly involved in those discussions, the Company is monitoring them closely and understands that other defendants involved in these lawsuits are engaged in global settlement discussions with plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding, state attorneys general and other plaintiff stakeholders. The Company continues to examine the possibility of broader resolutions in these actions. Breast Implant Securities Class Action. In December 2018, two plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s textured breast implants and their association with an uncommon cancer known as breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part in a ruling on September 20, 2019. The Company filed its answer on October 18, 2019 and the parties are now engaging in discovery. Oculeve Shareholder Dispute. On February 26, 2019, Fortis Advisors LLC, as a representative of the former stockholders of Oculeve, Inc., filed a lawsuit against a subsidiary of the Company in state court in Delaware. The lawsuit centers on a claim that the Company breached the terms of a July 2015 merger agreement. The court recently denied the Company subsidiary’s motion to dismiss the complaint. AbbVie Transaction Shareholder Action. On June 25, 2019, the Company and AbbVie Inc. announced that the companies had entered into a definitive transaction agreement whereby AbbVie will acquire the Company in a cash and stock transaction. On September 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company by one of its shareholders alleging that the Company and its Board of Directors violated the Securities laws by omitting or misrepresenting material information in the proxy statement the Company filed on September 16, 2019 seeking shareholder approval of the transaction with AbbVie. In addition to the complaint in this action, the Company received a shareholder demand letter from a shareholder following the issuance of the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2019. The lawsuit and demand letters were voluntarily dismissed and withdrawn. Product Liability Litigation Actonel^® Litigation. A subsidiary of the Company is a defendant in over 500 filed cases in federal and various state courts, relating to the bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel^®. In addition, there are three cases pending in provincial courts in Canada, two involving single plaintiffs, and a third on behalf of a purported class of injured plaintiffs. The complaints allege, among other things, that Actonel^® caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw (“ONJ”) and/or atypical fractures of the femur. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees. The Company subsidiary is being indemnified by Sanofi for certain claims pursuant to an agreement with Sanofi and is being partially indemnified by the Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) for ONJ claims that were pending at the time the Company subsidiary acquired P&G’s global pharmaceutical business in 2009. Settlements have been reached that have resolved most of the pending ONJ-related claims. Recently, all pending Actonel cases in New Jersey state court were dismissed without prejudice subject to refilling after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, Doc. No. 17-290. The U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision on May 20, 2019 and remanded the Merck case to the Third Circuit. Breast Implant Litigation. Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in approximately 48 cases, including several class actions and individual cases filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, alleging that Allergan’s textured breast implants caused women to develop an uncommon cancer known as breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (“BIA-ALCL”). Some of the lawsuits include claims that the defendants failed to properly warn against this risk and failed to promptly and properly report the results of the post-marketing studies relating to these products and that plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result. Other lawsuits seek to recover costs related to medical monitoring and damages for fear of developing BIA-ALCL. The federal product liability and “fear of” cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. There are several additional cases filed in state courts in the United States and well as provincial courts in Canada. On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a voluntary worldwide recall of unused BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders. This announcement may impact the number of lawsuits related to BIA-ALCL filed moving forward. Benicar^® Litigation. A subsidiary of the Company has been named in a number of lawsuits involving allegations that Benicar^® caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under a co-promotion agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company subsidiary in these lawsuits and has announced that it has agreed to enter into a program to settle all of the pending cases on behalf of all defendants, including the Company subsidiary. Celexa^®/Lexapro^® Litigation. Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in over 150 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. The Company has entered into a program to settle a number of the pending claims. None of the actions are set for trial. RepliForm^® Litigation. A Company subsidiary has been named as a defendant in over 300 cases alleging that its biologic mesh product RepliForm^® did not perform as intended and caused various injuries. Presently only three cases remain pending. The remainder of these cases have been settled or dismissed. Testosterone Litigation. A number of product liability suits were filed against certain Company subsidiaries 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^®. The cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois. In mid-2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle all of the pending cases. Government Investigations, Government Litigation and Qui Tam Litigation The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various 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. Company subsidiaries have received subpoenas and/or Civil Investigative Demands (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice, the United States Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, United States Congressional Committees as well as various state regulatory and enforcement authorities. Each of the subpoenas and CIDs seek documents and information relating to discrete topics, including but not limited to: the calculation and reporting by certain Company subsidiaries of their Average Manufacturer Prices, Average Wholesale Prices and Best Prices for several of their products; sales and marketing practices of Botox to urology practices; the promotion and sale of two gastroenterology products; the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s acquisition of six Restasis patents and the granting of exclusive licenses to the Restasis product to the Company; and, the promotion and sale of opioid products. In each case, the Company and its subsidiaries are cooperating fully with the governmental authority’s requests. Certain states have initiated lawsuits and qui tam lawsuits have been filed by private parties, also known as relators, on behalf of the federal or state governments. Certain Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits that allege generally that state Medicaid agencies were overcharged for their share of Medicaid drug reimbursement costs due to inflated Average Wholesale Prices (“AWP”) reported by the Company subsidiaries. AWP lawsuits are currently pending in Illinois, Utah and Wisconsin. Namenda XR^®/Namzaric^® Qui Tam. A relator filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States government and several individual states against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with Adamas Pharma LLC and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Adamas”). The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was unsealed on February 6, 2019. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges generally that the Adamas and Allergan defendants each engaged in conduct that delayed generic versions of Namenda XR^® and/or Namzaric^® from entering the market and that such conduct resulted in the submission of false claims to the government. The Company Defendants and Adamas have moved to dismiss the complaint. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held in December 2019. Medical Aesthetics Qui Tam. A subsidiary of the Company was served with a qui tam lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of the United States and several individual states. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges that certain promotional programs and sampling practices of the Company’s Medical Aesthetics business result in price reporting violations and violate anti-kickback statutes. The court recently denied the Company subsidiary’s motion to dismiss this complaint. Lumigan^® Qui Tam. A relator filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States government and several individual states against a subsidiary of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was unsealed on October 1, 2019. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges generally that Allergan failed to disclose certain side effects of Lumigan^®which resulted in the submission of false claims for reimbursement to the government. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint. Pricing Qui Tam. A relator filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States government and several individual states against certain subsidiaries of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which was unsealed on September 17, 2019. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges generally that the Company misreported its Best Price and Average Manufacturer Price for a number of products, thereby causing overpayment by the government. Defendants have moved to dismiss relator’s complaint. Matters Relating to the Company’s Divested Generics Business The following matters relate to the former generics business of the Company or the transaction pursuant to which that business was sold to Teva, effective August 2, 2016. Teva has agreed to indemnify and defend the Company against all matters asserted in litigation against the Company arising out of the former generics business, including litigations and investigations relating to generic opioid products including, without limitation, the actions described below. Hydrocortisone Investigation. In 2016, the Company received notice from the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) that it would be included within the scope of the CMA’s formal investigation under Section 25 of the Competition Act of 1998 (“CA98”) into suspected abuse of dominance by a former generics business subsidiary of the Company in relation to the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets. The CMA is investigating: (i) alleged excessive and unfair prices with respect to hydrocortisone tablets and (ii) whether the former generics business subsidiary entered into anti-competitive agreements with a potential competitor for this product. The CMA has issued statements of objection with respect to both parts of its investigation. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the investigation. Teva Shareholder Derivative Litigation. In 2017, the Company was named as defendant in a proposed Teva shareholder derivative litigation filed in the Economic Division of the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel. The lawsuit contains allegations that the Company aided and abetted Teva’s board of directors’ violations of Israeli securities laws. Recently, the plaintiffs have sought to assert additional claims against the Company. To date, the court has not determined whether it will allow plaintiffs to proceed with this action.

Commitments & Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 15 — 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 March 31, 2020, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of approximately $255.0 million. As of December 31, 2019, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet included accrued loss contingencies of approximately $1,190.0 million.

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.

In matters involving the assertion or defense of the Company’s intellectual property, the Company believes it has meritorious claims and intends to vigorously assert or defend the patents or other intellectual property at issue in such litigation. Similarly, in matters where the Company is a defendant, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, the Company can offer no assurances that it will be successful in a litigation or, in the case of patent enforcement matters, that a generic version of the product at issue will not be launched or enjoined. Failing to prevail in a litigation 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.

Intellectual Property Litigation

Patent Enforcement Matters

Bystolic^®. On July 2, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,545,040 in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Ajanta Pharma Ltd. and Ajanta Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, “Ajanta”) in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA by Ajanta seeking approval to market a generic version of Bystolic^® and challenging said patent. The Company entered into a settlement agreement with Ajanta on December 17, 2019, and the case was dismissed on January 2, 2020.

Combigan^®. On October 30, 2017, subsidiaries of the Company filed an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Number 9,770,453 (the “‘453 Patent”) against Sandoz, Inc. and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (“Sandoz”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in connection with the abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Sandoz and Alcon, seeking approval to market a generic version of Combigan^®. On March 6, 2018, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,907,801 (the “‘801 Patent”) and 9,907,802 (the “‘802 Patent”) were added to the case. The ‘453, ‘801 and ‘802 Patents are listed in the Orange Book for Combigan^® and expire on April 19, 2022. On July 13, 2018, the district court adopted Allergan’s proposed claim construction and granted Allergan’s motion for

preliminary injunction against Sandoz. On August 1, 2018, the district court entered an order setting a preliminary injunction bond in the amount of $157,300,000 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which Allergan posted. Sandoz appealed the grant of the injunction. On August 29, 2019, the Federal Circuit affirmed the grant of a preliminary injunction against Sandoz. A mandate issued on October 7, 2019. On January 8, 2020, the district court entered a scheduling order. Trial is expected to occur in Q2 2021, on a date to be determined by the court.

Fetzima^®. In October and November 2017, subsidiaries of the Company and Pierre Fabre Medicament S.A.S. brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. RE43,879 (the “‘879 Patent”); 8,481,598 (the “‘598 Patent”); and 8,865,937 (the “‘937 Patent”) against MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharmaceuticals Inc. (collectively, “MSN”), Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. and Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC (collectively, “Prinston”), Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited and Torrent Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Torrent”), West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. (collectively, “West-Ward”), Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (“Zydus”), Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma Limited (collectively, “Aurobindo”), and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Private Limited (collectively, “Amneal”), in connection with abbreviated new drug applications, respectively filed with the FDA by MSN, Prinston, Torrent, West-Ward, Zydus, Aurobindo, and Amneal, each seeking approval to market generic versions of Fetzima® and challenging said patents. The ‘879 Patent expires in June 2023 (not including a pending application for patent term extension (“PTE”)), the ‘598 patent expires in March 2031, and the ‘937 Patent expires in May 2032. Fact discovery is completed. Trial is expected to begin in August 2020, subject to the Court’s availability. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Amneal on December 18, 2018, and the case as against Amneal was dismissed. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Prinston on June 6, 2019, and the case as against Prinston was dismissed. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited (f/k/a West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals International Limited, respectively) on February 20, 2020.

In April 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Pierre Fabre Medicament S.A.S. brought an action for infringement of the ‘879, ‘598 and ‘937 Patents against Micro Labs Ltd. and Micro Labs USA, Inc. (“Micro”) in connection with Micro’s abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of Fetzima^® and challenging said patents. Allergan entered into a settlement agreement with Micro Labs on October 22, 2019 and the case was dismissed.

In December 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Pierre Fabre Medicament S.A.S. brought an action for infringement of the ‘879, ‘598 and ‘937 Patents against Torrent in connection with the same numbered Torrent abbreviated new drug application that was at issue in the action filed by Plaintiffs in 2017. Fact discovery is scheduled to close in November 2020. No trial date has been set.

Juvéderm^®. On February 26, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company filed an amended complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,450,475 (the “‘475 Patent”), 8,357,795 (the “‘795 Patent”), 8,822,676 (the “‘676 Patent”), 9,089,519 (the “‘519 Patent”), 9,238,013 (the “‘013 Patent”) and 9,358,322 (the “‘322 Patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Prollenium US Inc. and Prollenium Medical Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Prollenium”). The amended complaint seeks, among other things, a judgment that Defendants have infringed these patents by making, selling, offering to sell, and importing Prollenium’s Revanesse® Versa+TM products within and into the United States. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for Defendants’ infringement. Trial is scheduled for June 14, 2021. On April 13, 2020, Prollenium filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions that were filed by Prollenium with respect to the asserted patents and instituted by the USPTO in March and April 2020.

On January 23, 2020, subsidiaries of the Company filed a complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,391,202 (the “‘202 Patent”), and 10,485,896 (the “‘896 Patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Prollenium. The complaint seeks, among other things, a judgment that Defendants have infringed these patents by making, selling, offering to sell, and importing Prollenium’s Revanesse® Versa+TM products within and into the United States. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for Defendants’ infringement. On April 13, 2020, Prollenium filed a motion to stay the action pending resolution of Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions that were filed by Prollenium with respect to patents asserted in the earlier-filed action and instituted by the USPTO in March and April 2020.

Juvéderm^® IPR. In August, September and October 2019, Prollenium US Inc. (“Prollenium”) submitted Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) petitions to the USPTO regarding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,450,475 (the “‘475 Patent), 9,238,013 (the “‘013 patent”), 9,358,322 (the “‘322 patent”), 8,822,676 (the “‘676 patent”), 8,357,795 (the “‘795 patent”) and 9,089,519 (the “‘519 patent”). Prollenium’s IPR petitions seek review of all claims of the ‘013, ‘322, 676, and ‘519 patents, claims 1-9, 18, and 27-37 of the ‘475 patent, and claims 1-11, 22, 26-39, and 40-41 of the ‘795 patent. Patent owner’s preliminary responses for these petitions are due on December 19, 2019, or later. The Company filed patent owner's preliminary responses in December 2019 and January 2020 for petitions related to the ‘475, ‘013, ‘322, ‘676, ‘795, and ‘519 patents. On January 17, 2020, Prollenium filed a consolidated reply to the patent owner's preliminary responses with respect to the ‘475, ‘013, ‘322, ‘676, and ‘795 patents, and on January 24, 2020, the Company filed a consolidated sur-reply. In March and April 2020, the USPTO issued decisions granting institution of the IPRs filed by Prollenium. Oral argument, if requested, is scheduled in January 2021.

Latisse^® IV. In December 2016, Sandoz announced the U.S. market launch of its generic copy of Latisse^®. In July 2017, subsidiaries of the Company and Duke University (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint for infringement of U.S. Patent Number 9,579,270 (“‘270 Patent”) against Defendants Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) and Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (“Alcon”) in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX). The ‘270 patent expires in January 2021. In their complaint, Plaintiffs seek, among other things, a judgment that Defendants have infringed the ‘270 patent by making, selling, and offering to sell, and/or importing, their generic copy of Latisse^® within the United States. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages for Defendants’ infringement. On April 3, 2018, the EDTX court issued an order, among other things, severing Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants and transferring Plaintiff’s claims against Alcon to the District Court of Delaware and Plaintiff’s claims against Sandoz to the District of Colorado. On October 5, 2018, the Delaware District Court entered an order dismissing the Delaware action against Alcon. On September 18, 2019, the District of Colorado denied Sandoz’s motion for summary judgment. Discovery is closed in the District of Colorado case and a trial date has not yet been set.

Linzess^®. Beginning in November 2016 subsidiaries of the Company and Ironwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), brought multiple actions for infringement of some or all of 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”) against Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva”), Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. (“Aurobindo”), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”), Sandoz Inc. (“Sandoz”) and Sun Pharma Global FZE (“Sun”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Teva, Aurobindo, Mylan, Sandoz and Sun, each seeking approval to market generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg capsules and challenging some or all of said patents (“November 2016 Action”). 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. In the November 2016 Action, expert discovery has been completed. On May 31, 2019, due to a scheduling conflict, the bench trial set for June 2019 was postponed to January 7, 2020.

On October 20, 2017, November 30, 2017 and January 20, 2018, Plaintiffs brought actions for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,708,371 (the “‘371 Patent”) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Teva, Mylan and Sandoz, respectively. The ‘371 Patent expires in 2033. The ‘371 patent actions have been consolidated with the November 2016 Action.

On February 2, 2018 and March 29, 2018, Plaintiffs brought actions for infringement of some or all of the ‘036, ‘727, ‘947, ‘409, ‘526, ‘553, ‘030 and ‘371 Patents against Teva and Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with the FDA by Teva and Mylan, each seeking approval to market generic versions generic versions of Linzess^® 72 mcg capsules (“72 mcg ANDA”) before the expiration said patents. The district court consolidated the 72 mcg ANDA actions with the November 2016 Action.

In May and August 2018, the district court granted joint stipulations and orders to dismiss without prejudice all claims, counterclaims, and defenses in the November 2016 Action with respect to the ‘371 Patent and the ‘030 Patent, respectively, as between Plaintiffs, Teva, Mylan and Sandoz.

On September 4, 2018, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint as to Mylan to assert the ‘628 patent against Mylan’s 72 mcg ANDA product.

Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Sun and certain Sun affiliates and the case against Sun was dismissed on January 18, 2018. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Aurobindo and the case against Aurobindo was dismissed on May 7, 2018. Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Mylan and the case against Mylan was dismissed on December 27, 2018. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Mylan to market its generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg in the United States beginning on February 5, 2030 (subject to FDA approval), and its generic version of Linzess^® 72 mcg in the United States beginning on August 5, 2030, or earlier in certain circumstances.

Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Sandoz on January 3, 2020, and the cases against Sandoz were dismissed on January 7, 2020. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Sandoz to market its generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg in the United States beginning on February 5, 2030 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier in certain circumstances.

On January 17, 2020, upon the parties' request, the district court dismissed without prejudice the litigations relating only to Teva's 72 mcg version of Linzess^®. Plaintiffs had asserted patents against Teva's 72 mcg ANDA, the last of which expires in 2026, subject to possible pediatric extension. Prior to the dismissal, Teva had stipulated to infringement of certain claims of those patents. On January 21, 2020, Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Teva and the remaining case against Teva was dismissed. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Plaintiffs will provide a license to Teva to market its generic versions of Linzess^® 145 mcg and 290 mcg in the United States beginning on March 31, 2029 (subject to FDA approval), or earlier in certain circumstances. This settlement does not grant any license to Teva with regard to its 72 mcg generic version of Linzess^®.

Saphris^®. Between September 2014 and May 2015, subsidiaries of the Company 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”) against Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC (“Sigmapharm”), Hikma Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Hikma”), Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Breckenridge”), Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Alembic”) and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Amneal”), and related subsidiaries and affiliates thereof in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with an abbreviated new drug applications respectively filed with FDA by Sigmapharm, Hikma, Breckenridge, Alembic and Amneal, each seeking approval to market a generic versions of Saphris^® and challenging each of said patents. 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. In 2016, the parties agreed to dismiss all claims related to the ‘358 and ‘228 patents, leaving only the ‘476 patent at issue. On October 13, 2016, the court stayed trial as to Sigmapharm and extended the 30-month stay as to Sigmapharm. On June 30, 2017, the district court issued an opinion and order finding all asserted claims of the ‘476 patent valid, that claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 were infringed by Alembic, Amneal, Breckenridge and Hikma, and that claims 4, 9 and 10 were not infringed by Alembic and Breckenridge. On July 11, 2017, the district court entered a final judgment that ordered, among other things, that Alembic’s, Amneal’s, Breckenridge’s and Hikma’s respective ANDAs not be granted final approval by FDA earlier than the date of expiration of the ‘476 patent inclusive of any applicable adjustments, extensions or exclusivities.

On March 14, 2019, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s July 2017 judgment that claims 1 and 4 are not invalid and remanded for the district court to consider a fact question and its impact on the obviousness analysis. On April 15, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a combined petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc with respect to this issue, which was denied on May 15, 2019. In its March 14, 2019 order, the Federal Circuit also vacated the judgment of non-infringement of claims 4, 9 and 10 as to Alembic and Breckenridge and remanded for the district court to consider their infringement under a revised claim construction. In a joint stipulation entered by the district court on November 5, 2019, Alembic stipulated that its ANDA infringed claims 4, 9 and 10 of the '476 patent. On December 17, 2019, the district court entered a schedule for briefing on the remanded issues. Oral argument is currently scheduled for June 9, 2020.

A separate bench trial concerning Sigmapharm’s infringement of claim 1 of the ‘476 patent began on June 20, 2018, and on November 16, 2018, the court held that Sigmapharm’s proposed ANDA product would infringe claim 1 of the ‘476 patent On November 26, 2018, Sigmapharm sought relief from the November 16, 2018 decision. On November 30, 2018, the Company moved for entry of final judgment. On August 6, 2019, the district court denied Sigmapharm’s motion to reconsider its November 2018 Order, and denied without prejudice the Company’s motion for entry of final judgment. On August 22, 2019, the district court entered Plaintiffs and Sigmapharm’s stipulated final judgment finding that Sigmapharm infringed claims 1, 2, 5, and 6 of the ‘476 patent and ordering, among other things, that Sigmapharm’s ANDA be converted to tentative approval and not be granted final approval by FDA earlier than the date of expiration of the ‘476 patent inclusive of any applicable adjustments, extensions or exclusivities.

Viberzi^®. On September 6, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Janssen Pharmaceutica NV brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,741,356 ("the '356 patent"), 7,786,158 ("the '158 patent"), 8,344,011 ("the '011 patent"), 8,609,709 ("the '709 patent"), 8,772,325 ("the '325 patent"), 9,205,076 ("the '076 patent"), 9,700,542 ("the '542 patent"), and 10,213,415 ("the '415 patent") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. and Aurobindo Pharma USA Inc. (collectively, “Aurobindo”) in connection with an abbreviated new drug application filed with the FDA by Aurobindo seeking approval to market a generic version of Viberzi^® and challenging said patents. Trial has been scheduled for May 2, 2022.

On September 13, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company brought an action for infringement of United States Patent Nos. 8,691,860 ("the '860 patent"), 9,115,091 ("the '091 patent"), 9,364,489 ("the '489 patent"), 9,675,587 ("the '587 patent"), 9,789,125 ("the '125 patent"), and 10,188,632 ("the '632 patent") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, “Aurobindo”), Alkem Laboratories Limited (“Alkem”), Hetero Labs Limited and Hetero USA Inc. (collectively, “Hetero”), MSN Laboratories Private Limited and MSN Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “MSN”), Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (“Sun”), and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (“Zydus”) in connection with abbreviated new drug applications, respectively filed with the FDA by Aurobindo, Alkem, Hetero, MSN, Sun and Zydus, each seeking approval to market generic versions of Viberzi® and challenging said patents. Trial has been scheduled for May 2, 2022.

Vraylar^®. On December 20, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Gedeon Richter Plc. brought an action for infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,737,142 ("the '142 patent"), and 7,943,621 ("the '621 patent") in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited and Sun Pharma Global FZE (collectively, "Sun"), Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively, "Aurobindo"), and Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA), Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Limited (collectively, "Zydus") in connection with abbreviated new drug applications, respectively filed with the FDA by Sun, Aurobindo, and Zydus, seeking approval to market generic versions of Vraylar^® and challenging said patents. No trial date or case schedule has been set.

Trade Secret Matters

Botulinum Neurotoxin ITC Investigation. On January 30, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company and Medytox Inc. (collectively, “Complainants”) filed a complaint with the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”) against Daewoong Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., Daewoong Co., Ltd., and Evolus Inc. (collectively, “Respondents”) requesting the ITC commence an investigation with respect to the Respondents’ importation into the United States of Respondents’ botulinum neurotoxin products, including DWP-450 (also known as Jeuveau^TM), which Complainants assert were developed, made and/or imported using Medytox’s trade secrets. Complainants seek, among other things, a permanent exclusionary order and cease and desist orders covering Respondents’ botulinum neurotoxin products, including DWP-450/Jeuveau^TM. On February 28, 2019, the ITC instituted an investigation into Respondents’ botulinum neurotoxin products, including DWP-450/Jeuveau^TM. Fact and expert discovery is closed and a hearing was held in early February 2020. Post-hearing briefing was completed on February 28, 2020. The target date for completion of the investigation is October 6, 2020.

Trademark Enforcement Matters

Juvéderm^®. On April 5, 2017, a subsidiary of the Company brought an action for unfair competition, false advertising, dilution, conspiracy and infringement of Allergan’s Juvéderm^® trademarks in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Dermavita Limited Partnership (“Dermavita”), Dima Corp. S.A. (“Dima Corp.”) and KBC Media Relations LLC (“KBC”). Dima Corp. had previously announced its acquisition of a license from Dermavita to develop and market in the U.S. cosmetic products under the Juvederm trademark. During June 2017, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with KBC. During July 2017, the Court preliminarily enjoined Dima Corp. from, inter alia, promoting or selling within the United States any product bearing the trademark Juvéderm^® or any other trademark confusingly similar to it. During January 2018, the Court granted Dermavita’s renewed motion to dismiss the Company’s complaint based on purported lack of personal jurisdiction. During January 2019, the Company subsidiary and Dima Corp. resolved the action and the Court entered a permanent injunction and final judgment in favor of the Company subsidiary and against Dima Corp. for trademark infringement, unfair competition, dilution and false advertising.

Subsidiaries of the Company requested a preliminary injunction against Dermavita, Dima Corp, Aesthetic Services & Development, Jacqueline Sillam and Dimitri Sillam in the High Court of Paris, France. During June 2017, the Paris Court preliminarily enjoined the above-listed defendants, inter alia, to refrain from promoting or selling in France its Juvederm products, to transfer various domain names and to pay provisional damages to Allergan, on the basis that such use would infringe Allergan’s EU and French Juvéderm^® trademarks and would amount to unfair competition. This injunction has become final. During July 2018, the Paris Court ordered Dermavita, Dima Corp, Aesthetic Services & Development to pay more than 75,000 Euros in liquidated damages for violation of the preliminary injunction mentioned above. On February 2020, the Paris Court preliminarily enjoined newly-added defendants Lazeo, My Cream Lab, Vital Esthetique and Juvederm Elite Clinics, inter alia, to refrain from promoting or selling in the EU its Juvederm products and to pay provisional damages to the Company.

A subsidiary of the Company has also filed against Dermavita, Dima Corp. and others a full action of trademark infringement in the Paris court. Dermavita has submitted two requests that the full action be stayed pending the outcome of the Nanterre action and the EUIPO trademark proceedings, both mentioned below. The Paris court rejected both of Dermavita’s stay requests. Furthermore, Dermavita filed an action against subsidiaries of the Company in the Nanterre, France court alleging that the subsidiaries have not used its Juvéderm trademark and requesting the court to revoke the Company’s trademark based on its purported lack of use or purportedly invalid license and assignment agreements. On February 21, 2019, the Nanterre Court ruled in the Company’s favor, holding that the license and assignment agreements were valid and that Allergan has used its trademark in commerce. Dermavita has appealed this decision.

Dermavita has filed another action against subsidiaries of the Company in the Paris court requesting the court to declare that a trademark license agreement and trademark assignment agreement between subsidiaries of the Company are invalid and/or fraudulent. The case is still ongoing.

On January 22, 2019, subsidiaries of the Company brought a related action for infringement of the Company’s Juvéderm^®trademarks against Aesthetic Services and Development Limited, Juvederm Elite Clinics SARL and Jamal Hamadi in the (UK) High Court of Justice. The case is still ongoing.

Furthermore, more than 150 trademark opposition and cancellation actions between Allergan and Dermavita have been filed in front of the USPTO, EUIPO and various other national and regional trademark offices around the world. Most of these actions remain pending; however, Allergan has received favorable decisions in more than thirty (30) such actions.

Antitrust Litigation

Loestrin^® 24 Litigation. Putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers as well as opt-out direct purchasers have filed complaints that have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. The lawsuits allege that subsidiaries of the Company engaged in anticompetitive conduct, including when settling patent lawsuits related to Loestrin^® 24 Fe, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages in the billions of dollars which, if plaintiffs are successful, are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws. The court granted the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ class certification motion but had not decided the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ class motion. Summary judgement motions were fully briefed, and oral arguments were held in September 2019. Trial in this action was scheduled to begin in January 2020. The parties reached agreements with each group of plaintiffs that, taken together, will resolve this litigation in its entirety. Based on the settlements with the plaintiffs, the Company booked an accrual of $302,500,000. The direct and indirect purchaser settlement agreements remain subject to final court approval.

Namenda^® Litigation. In 2014, the State of New York filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Forest was acting to prevent or delay generic competition to Namenda® in violation of federal and New York antitrust laws and committed other fraudulent acts in connection with its commercial plans for Namenda^® XR. The district court granted the state’s motion for a preliminary injunction which was later affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties in that case then reached a settlement to resolve the dispute. Following the conclusion of the New York Attorney General Matter, putative class actions were filed on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers in the same federal court. 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 a Company subsidiary and generic companies also violated the antitrust laws. The court had denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the direct purchaser action, certified the direct purchaser class of plaintiffs and set a trial date for October 28, 2019. Prior to the start of the trial, the parties in the direct purchaser class action reached an agreement in principle to settle that litigation for $750,000,000. The agreement, which contains no admission of liability, remains subject to final court approval.

Restasis^® Competitor Litigation. Shire, which offers the dry-eye disease drug Xiidra^®, sued subsidiaries of the Company in U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that defendants unlawfully harmed competition by foreclosing Xiidra^® from sales to Medicare Part D plans (and the members of such plans) through the use of discounts (a) contingent on Restasis® receiving preferential formulary treatment; and/or (b) across a bundle of Allergan’s products, including Restasis^®. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and damages under federal and state law. The court issued a decision on March 22, 2019 granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 25, 2019, Shire filed an amended complaint. Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. At the request of the parties, the court entered an Order on June 28, 2019, staying the action through December 27, 2019. The stay was extended through February 18, 2020 during which time the parties reached an agreement in principal to settle this litigation

Restasis^® Class Action Litigation. Several class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of Restasis^® alleging that subsidiaries of the company harmed competition by engaging in conduct to delay the market entry of generic versions of Restasis^® in violation of the federal antitrust laws as well as state antitrust and consumer-protection laws and unjust enrichment. The cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. All plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in the billions of dollars which, if plaintiffs are successful are subject to trebling under the antitrust laws, as well as declaratory relief, and injunctive relief. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Trial in this action is scheduled to begin in April 2020. Recently, the Company reached agreements to settle the claims asserted by all direct purchaser plaintiffs and the Company has taken a reserve of $78,800,000 for these settlements. The Company intends to vigorously defend its conduct and the patents or other intellectual property at issue in what remains of this litigation.

Commercial Litigation

Warner Chilcott Marketing Practices. A putative nationwide class of private payer entities, or their assignees, that paid Medicare benefits on behalf of their beneficiaries filed a complaint against certain subsidiaries of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Complaint asserts claims under the federal RICO statute, state consumer protection statutes, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment with respect to the sale and marketing of certain products. The court recently granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Following the dismissal of the action in federal court, plaintiffs recently filed a nearly identical complaint in state court in New Jersey. On March 27, 2020, the state court granted the Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Generic Drug Pricing Securities and ERISA Litigation. Putative classes of shareholders and two individual opt-out plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading statements between February 2014 and November 2016 regarding the Company’s internal controls over its financial reporting and that it failed to disclose that its former Actavis generics unit had engaged in illegal, anticompetitive price-fixing with its generic industry peers. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, but the court denied the motion in a ruling on August 6, 2019. The parties are now engaging in discovery in these cases. In addition, class action complaints have been filed premised on the same alleged underlying conduct that is at issue in the securities litigation but that assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). These complaints have been consolidated in the district court in New Jersey. The court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss this complaint. The ERISA plaintiffs have appealed this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Prescription Opioid Drug Abuse Litigation. The Company has been named as a defendant, along with several other manufacturers and distributors of opioid products, in over 2,000 matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers and additional suits have been filed. The lawsuits allege generally that the manufacturer defendants engaged in a deceptive campaign to promote their products in violation of state laws and seek unspecified monetary damages, penalties and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs in these suits include states, political subdivisions of states (i.e., counties and municipalities), Native American tribes and other private litigants such as insurance plans, hospital systems and consumers who were prescribed opioid products and were subsequently treated for an overdose or addiction. Cases are pending in both federal and state courts. The federal court cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The Company recently reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in the first case that is set for trial in the MDL proceeding. To the Company’s knowledge, it was one of the first defendants in the MDL proceeding to reach a settlement with the plaintiffs and that settlement is among the lowest of all the settlements that have been announced to date in that consolidated action. While not directly involved in those discussions, the Company is monitoring them closely and understands that other defendants involved in these lawsuits are engaged in global settlement discussions with plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding, state attorneys general and other plaintiff stakeholders. The Company continues to examine the possibility of broader resolutions in these actions.

Breast Implant Securities Class Action. In December 2018, two plaintiffs filed class action lawsuits against the Company and certain of its current and former officers alleging that defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s textured breast implants and their association with an uncommon cancer known as breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. These lawsuits have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaints seek unspecified monetary damages. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the court granted in part and denied in part in a ruling on September 20, 2019. The Company filed its answer on October 18, 2019 and the parties are now engaging in discovery.

Oculeve Shareholder Dispute. On February 26, 2019, Fortis Advisors LLC, as a representative of the former stockholders of Oculeve, Inc., filed a lawsuit against a subsidiary of the Company in state court in Delaware. The lawsuit centers on a claim that the Company breached the terms of a July 2015 merger agreement. The court recently denied the Company subsidiary’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

AbbVie Transaction Shareholder Action. On June 25, 2019, the Company and AbbVie Inc. announced that the companies had entered into a definitive transaction agreement whereby AbbVie will acquire the Company in a cash and stock transaction. On September 20, 2019, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company by one of its shareholders alleging that the Company and its Board of Directors violated the Securities laws by omitting or misrepresenting material information in the proxy statement the Company filed on September 16, 2019 seeking shareholder approval of the transaction with AbbVie. In addition to the complaint in this action, the Company received a shareholder demand letter from a shareholder following the issuance of the preliminary proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 12, 2019. The lawsuit and demand letters were voluntarily dismissed and withdrawn.

Product Liability Litigation

Actonel^® Litigation. A subsidiary of the Company is a defendant in over 500 filed cases in federal and various state courts, relating to the bisphosphonate prescription drug Actonel^®. In addition, there are three cases pending in provincial courts in Canada, two involving single plaintiffs, and a third on behalf of a purported class of injured plaintiffs. The complaints allege, among other things, that Actonel^® caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw (“ONJ”) and/or atypical fractures of the femur. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees. The Company subsidiary is being indemnified by Sanofi for certain claims pursuant to an agreement with Sanofi and is being partially indemnified by the Procter & Gamble Company (“P&G”) for ONJ claims that were pending at the time the Company subsidiary acquired P&G’s global pharmaceutical business in 2009. Settlements have been reached that have resolved most of the pending ONJ-related claims. Recently, all pending Actonel cases in New Jersey state court were dismissed without prejudice subject to refilling after the U.S. Supreme Court issues a decision in Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht, Doc. No. 17-290. The U.S. Supreme Court issued their decision on May 20, 2019 and remanded the Merck case to the Third Circuit.

Breast Implant Litigation. Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in approximately 48 cases, including several class actions and individual cases filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, alleging that Allergan’s textured breast implants caused women to develop an uncommon cancer known as breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (“BIA-ALCL”). Some of the lawsuits include claims that the defendants failed to properly warn against this risk and failed to promptly and properly report the results of the post-marketing studies relating to these products and that plaintiffs suffered injuries as a result. Other lawsuits seek to recover costs related to medical monitoring and damages for fear of developing BIA-ALCL. The federal product liability and “fear of” cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for New Jersey. There are several additional cases filed in state courts in the United States and well as provincial courts in Canada. On July 24, 2019, Allergan announced a voluntary worldwide recall of unused BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders. This announcement may impact the number of lawsuits related to BIA-ALCL filed moving forward.

Benicar^® Litigation. A subsidiary of the Company has been named in a number of lawsuits involving allegations that Benicar^® caused certain gastrointestinal injuries. Under a co-promotion agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is defending the Company subsidiary in these lawsuits and has announced that it has agreed to enter into a program to settle all of the pending cases on behalf of all defendants, including the Company subsidiary.

Celexa^®/Lexapro^® Litigation. Certain Company subsidiaries are defendants in over 150 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. The Company has entered into a program to settle a number of the pending claims. None of the actions are set for trial.

RepliForm^® Litigation. A Company subsidiary has been named as a defendant in over 300 cases alleging that its biologic mesh product RepliForm^® did not perform as intended and caused various injuries. Presently only three cases remain pending. The remainder of these cases have been settled or dismissed.

Testosterone Litigation. A number of product liability suits were filed against certain Company subsidiaries 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^®. The cases have been consolidated in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Illinois. In mid-2018, the parties reached an agreement to settle all of the pending cases.

Government Investigations, Government Litigation and Qui Tam Litigation

The Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various 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.

Company subsidiaries have received subpoenas and/or Civil Investigative Demands (“CID”) from the United States Department of Justice, the United States Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, United States Congressional Committees as well as various state regulatory and enforcement authorities. Each of the subpoenas and CIDs seek documents and information relating to discrete topics, including but not limited to: the calculation and reporting by certain Company subsidiaries of their Average Manufacturer Prices, Average Wholesale Prices and Best Prices for several of their products; sales and marketing practices of Botox to urology practices; the promotion and sale of two gastroenterology products; the Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe’s acquisition of six Restasis patents and the granting of exclusive licenses to the Restasis product to the Company; and, the promotion and sale of opioid products. In each case, the Company and its subsidiaries are cooperating fully with the governmental authority’s requests.

Certain states have initiated lawsuits and qui tam lawsuits have been filed by private parties, also known as relators, on behalf of the federal or state governments. Certain Company subsidiaries have been named as defendants in lawsuits that allege generally that state Medicaid agencies were overcharged for their share of Medicaid drug reimbursement costs due to inflated Average Wholesale Prices (“AWP”) reported by the Company subsidiaries. AWP lawsuits are currently pending in Illinois, Utah and Wisconsin.

Namenda XR^®/Namzaric^® Qui Tam. A relator filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States government and several individual states against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries along with Adamas Pharma LLC and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (collectively, “Adamas”). The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was unsealed on February 6, 2019. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges generally that the Adamas and Allergan defendants each engaged in conduct that delayed generic versions of Namenda XR^® and/or Namzaric^® from entering the market and that such conduct resulted in the submission of false claims to the government. The Company Defendants and Adamas have moved to dismiss the complaint. Oral argument on the motions to dismiss was held in December 2019.

Medical Aesthetics Qui Tam. A subsidiary of the Company was served with a qui tam lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on behalf of the United States and several individual states. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges that certain promotional programs and sampling practices of the Company’s Medical Aesthetics business result in price reporting violations and violate anti-kickback statutes. The court recently denied the Company subsidiary’s motion to dismiss this complaint.

Lumigan^® Qui Tam. A relator filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States government and several individual states against a subsidiary of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, which was unsealed on October 1, 2019. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges generally that Allergan failed to disclose certain side effects of Lumigan^®which resulted in the submission of false claims for reimbursement to the government. The Company has not yet been served with the complaint.

Pricing Qui Tam. A relator filed a qui tam lawsuit on behalf of the United States government and several individual states against certain subsidiaries of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, which was unsealed on September 17, 2019. The federal and state governments have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint alleges generally that the Company misreported its Best Price and Average Manufacturer Price for a number of products, thereby causing overpayment by the government. Defendants have moved to dismiss relator’s complaint.

Matters Relating to the Company’s Divested Generics Business

The following matters relate to the former generics business of the Company or the transaction pursuant to which that business was sold to Teva, effective August 2, 2016. Teva has agreed to indemnify and defend the Company against all matters asserted in litigation against the Company arising out of the former generics business, including litigations and investigations relating to generic opioid products including, without limitation, the actions described below.

Hydrocortisone Investigation. In 2016, the Company received notice from the UK Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) that it would be included within the scope of the CMA’s formal investigation under Section 25 of the Competition Act of 1998 (“CA98”) into suspected abuse of dominance by a former generics business subsidiary of the Company in relation to the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets. The CMA is investigating: (i) alleged excessive and unfair prices with respect to hydrocortisone tablets and (ii) whether the former generics business subsidiary entered into anti-competitive agreements with a potential competitor for this product. The CMA has issued statements of objection with respect to both parts of its investigation. The Company intends to cooperate fully with the investigation.

Teva Shareholder Derivative Litigation. In 2017, the Company was named as defendant in a proposed Teva shareholder derivative litigation filed in the Economic Division of the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel. The lawsuit contains allegations that the Company aided and abetted Teva’s board of directors’ violations of Israeli securities laws. Recently, the plaintiffs have sought to assert additional claims against the Company. To date, the court has not determined whether it will allow plaintiffs to proceed with this action.