We and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in various claims, legal proceedings and internal and governmental investigations (collectively, proceedings) that arise from time to time, including, among others, those relating to product liability, intellectual property, regulatory compliance, consumer protection, tax and commercial matters. While we cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings and we intend to vigorously prosecute or defend our position as appropriate, there can be no assurance that we will be successful or obtain any requested relief. An adverse outcome in any of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Matters that are not being disclosed herein are, in the opinion of our management, immaterial both individually and in the aggregate with respect to our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. If and when such matters, in the opinion of our management, become material, either individually or in the aggregate, we will disclose them.

We believe that certain settlements and judgments, as well as legal defense costs, relating to certain product liability or other matters are or may be covered in whole or in part under our insurance policies with a number of insurance carriers. In certain circumstances, insurance carriers reserve their rights to contest or deny coverage. We intend to contest vigorously any disputes with our insurance carriers and to enforce our rights under the terms of our insurance policies. Accordingly, we will record receivables with respect to amounts due under these policies only when the realization of the potential claim for recovery is considered probable. Amounts recovered under our insurance policies could be materially less than stated coverage limits and may not be adequate to cover damages, other relief and/or costs relating to claims. In addition, there is no guarantee that insurers will pay claims or that coverage will otherwise be available. See the risk factor “We may not have and may be unable to obtain or maintain insurance adequate to cover potential liabilities” in the Annual Report for more information.

As of June 30, 2020, our accrual for loss contingencies totaled $418.9 million, the most significant components of which relate to product liability and related matters associated with transvaginal surgical mesh products, which we have not sold since March 2016. Although we believe there is a reasonable possibility that a loss in excess of the amount recognized exists, we are unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amount recognized at this time. While the timing of the resolution of certain of the matters accrued for as loss contingencies remains uncertain and could extend beyond 12 months, as of June 30, 2020, the entire liability accrual amount is classified in the Current portion of legal settlement accrual in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Since 2008, we and certain of our subsidiaries, including American Medical Systems Holdings, Inc. (AMS) (subsequently converted to Astora Women’s Health Holding LLC and merged into Astora Women’s Health LLC and referred to herein as AMS and/or Astora), have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various state and federal courts in the U.S. (including a federal multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia), and in Canada, Australia and other countries, alleging personal injury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse (POP) and stress urinary incontinence (SUI). Our subsidiaries have not sold such products since March 2016. Plaintiffs claim a variety of personal injuries, including chronic pain, incontinence, inability to control bowel function and permanent deformities, and seek compensatory and punitive damages, where available.

Various Master Settlement Agreements (MSAs) and other agreements have resolved approximately 71,000 filed and unfiled U.S. mesh claims. These MSAs and other agreements were entered into at various times between June 2013 and the present, were solely by way of compromise and settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. All MSAs are subject to a process that includes guidelines and procedures for administering the settlements and the release of funds. In certain cases, the MSAs provide for the creation of QSFs into which the settlement funds will be deposited, establish participation requirements and allow for a reduction of the total settlement payment in the event participation thresholds are not met. Funds deposited in QSFs are considered restricted cash and/or restricted cash equivalents. Distribution of funds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon the receipt of documentation substantiating product use, the dismissal of any lawsuit and the release of the claim as to us and all affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, an individual claimant must represent and warrant that liens, assignment rights or other claims identified in the claims administration process have been or will be satisfied by the individual claimant. Confidentiality provisions apply to the settlement funds, amounts allocated to individual claimants and other terms of the agreements.

As of June 30, 2020, the Company has made total cumulative mesh liability payments of approximately $3.6 billion, $175.8 million of which remains in the QSFs as of June 30, 2020. We currently expect to fund the remaining payments under all previously executed settlement agreements into the QSFs during 2020. As funds are disbursed out of the QSFs from time to time, the liability accrual will be reduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restricted cash and cash equivalents. In addition, we may pay cash distributions to settle disputes separate from the QSFs, which will also decrease the liability accrual and decrease cash and cash equivalents.

The MDL court has been remanding MDL cases to their districts of origin for further proceedings. Other cases are proceeding in various state and federal courts. The earliest trial is currently scheduled for November 2020; however, trials may occur earlier or later as timing remains uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors. We will continue to vigorously defend any unresolved claims and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any additional losses that could be incurred.

Since 2014, multiple U.S. states as well as other governmental persons or entities and private plaintiffs in the U.S. and Canada have filed suit against us and/or certain of our subsidiaries, including Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI), Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI), PPI, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC and DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and in Canada, Paladin, as well as various other manufacturers, distributors, pharmacies and/or others, asserting claims relating to defendants’ alleged sales, marketing and/or distribution practices with respect to prescription opioid medications, including certain of our products. As of July 30, 2020, filed cases in the U.S. of which we were aware include, but are not limited to, approximately 20 cases filed by or on behalf of states; approximately 2,840 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 290 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 165 cases filed by individuals. Certain of the cases have been filed as putative class actions. The Canadian cases include an action filed by British Columbia on behalf of a proposed class of all federal, provincial and territorial governments and agencies in Canada that paid healthcare, pharmaceutical and treatment costs related to opioids, an action filed by the City of Grand Prairie, Alberta on behalf of a proposed class of all local or municipal governments in Canada, as well as three additional putative class actions, filed in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, seeking relief on behalf of Canadian residents who were prescribed and/or consumed opioid medications.

Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Other cases are pending in various federal or state courts. The cases are at various stages in the litigation process. The first MDL trial, relating to the claims of two Ohio counties (Track One plaintiffs), was set for October 2019 but did not go forward after most defendants settled. EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with the Track One plaintiffs in September 2019 which provided for payments totaling $10 million and up to $1 million of VASOSTRICT^® and/or ADRENALIN^®. Under the settlement agreement, the Track One plaintiffs may be entitled to additional payments in the event of a comprehensive resolution of government-related opioid claims. The settlement agreement was solely by way of compromise and settlement and was not in any way an admission of liability or fault by us or any of our subsidiaries. The earliest trial is currently scheduled for September 2020; however, trials may occur earlier or later as timing remains uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors. Most cases remain at the pleading and/or discovery stage.

The complaints in the cases assert a variety of claims, including but not limited to statutory claims asserting violations of public nuisance, consumer protection, unfair trade practices, racketeering, Medicaid fraud and/or drug dealer liability laws and/or common law claims for public nuisance, fraud/misrepresentation, strict liability, negligence and/or unjust enrichment. The claims are generally based on alleged misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection with the sale and marketing of prescription opioid medications and/or alleged failures to take adequate steps to identify and report suspicious orders and to prevent abuse and diversion. Plaintiffs have generally sought various remedies including, without limitation, declaratory and/or injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys’ fees, costs and/or other relief.

In September 2019, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) seeking documents and information regarding the marketing, sale and distribution of opioid medications in New York. In June 2020, DFS commenced an administrative action against the Company, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI alleging violations of the New York Insurance Law and New York Financial Services Law. The statement of charges alleges that fraudulent or otherwise wrongful conduct in the marketing, sale and/or distribution of opioid medications caused false claims to be submitted to insurers and seeks civil penalties for each allegedly fraudulent prescription as well as injunctive relief. The action is currently set for hearing in October 2020.

Since March 2016, various private plaintiffs, state attorneys general and other governmental entities have filed cases against our subsidiary PPI and/or, in some instances, the Company, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, EPI, EHSI and/or PPCI, as well as other pharmaceutical manufacturers and, in some instances, other corporate and/or individual defendants, alleging price-fixing and other anticompetitive conduct with respect to generic pharmaceutical products. These cases, which include proposed class actions filed on behalf of direct purchasers, end-payers and indirect purchaser resellers, as well as non-class action suits, have generally been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. There is also a proposed class action filed in the Federal Court of Canada on behalf of a proposed class of Canadian purchasers.

The various complaints and amended complaints generally assert claims under federal and/or state antitrust law, state consumer protection statutes and/or state common law, and seek damages, treble damages, civil penalties, disgorgement, declaratory and injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. Some claims are based on alleged product-specific conspiracies and other claims allege broader, multiple-product conspiracies. Under these overarching conspiracy theories, plaintiffs seek to hold all alleged participants in a particular conspiracy jointly and severally liable for all harms caused by the alleged conspiracy, not just harms related to the products manufactured and/or sold by a particular defendant.

In December 2014, our subsidiary PPI received from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) a federal grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania addressed to “Par Pharmaceuticals.” The subpoena requested documents and information focused primarily on product and pricing information relating to the authorized generic version of Lanoxin (digoxin) oral tablets and generic doxycycline products, and on communications with competitors and others regarding those products. We are cooperating with the investigation.

Beginning in November 2013, multiple alleged purchasers of LIDODERM^® sued our subsidiary EPI and other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the defendants’ settlement of certain patent infringement litigation. The various complaints asserted claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law and sought damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. These cases were consolidated and/or coordinated in a federal MDL in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The last cases remaining in the MDL were dismissed with prejudice in September 2018, when the court approved EPI’s settlements with direct and indirect purchaser classes. Those settlement agreements provided for aggregate payments of approximately $100 million. Of this total, EPI paid approximately $60 million in 2018, $30 million in the first quarter of 2019 and $10 million in the first quarter of 2020. In September 2019, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed a complaint against EPI and other pharmaceutical companies in the Third Judicial Circuit Court, Wayne County, Michigan, asserting claims substantially similar to those asserted in the MDL. In October 2019, certain defendants removed the case to federal court; in April 2020, the case was remanded back to state court. In June 2020, defendants filed a motion for summary disposition.

Beginning in June 2014, multiple alleged purchasers of OPANA^® ER sued our subsidiaries EHSI and EPI and other pharmaceutical companies including Impax Laboratories, LLC (formerly Impax Laboratories, Inc. and referred to herein as Impax) and Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., which our subsidiary EPI had acquired, alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of an agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle certain patent infringement litigation and EPI’s introduction of reformulated OPANA^® ER. Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers, while others were filed on behalf of individual retailers or health care benefit plans. The cases have been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law. Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees. In March 2019, direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which remain pending. In April 2020, defendants filed motions for summary judgment.

Beginning in February 2009, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and certain private plaintiffs sued our subsidiaries PPCI (since June 2016, EGHI) and/or PPI as well as other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of AndroGel^® and seeking damages, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. The cases were consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. In May 2016, plaintiffs representing a putative class of indirect purchasers voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice. In February 2017, the FTC voluntarily dismissed its claims against EGHI with prejudice. In June 2018, the MDL court granted in part and denied in part various summary judgment and evidentiary motions filed by defendants. In particular, among other things, the court rejected two of the remaining plaintiffs’ causation theories and rejected damages claims related to AndroGel^® 1.62%. In July 2018, the court denied certain plaintiffs’ motion for certification of a direct purchaser class. In November 2019, PPI and PPCI entered into settlement agreements with all but one of the remaining plaintiffs in the MDL. The settlement agreements were solely by way of compromise and settlement and were not in any way an admission of liability or fault. Separately, in August 2019, several alleged direct purchasers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania asserting claims substantially similar to those asserted in the MDL, as well as additional claims against other defendants relating to other alleged conduct. In January 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied defendants’ motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Georgia.

Beginning in May 2018, multiple complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against PPI, EPI and/or us, as well as other pharmaceutical companies, alleging violations of antitrust law arising out of the settlement of certain patent litigation concerning the generic version of Exforge^® (amlodipine/valsartan). Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers; others are non-class action suits. The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law. Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. In September 2018, the putative class plaintiffs stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of their claims against EPI and us, and the retailer plaintiffs later did the same. PPI filed a partial motion to dismiss certain claims in September 2018, which was granted in August 2019. The cases are currently in discovery.

Beginning in August 2019, multiple complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against PPI and other pharmaceutical companies alleging violations of antitrust law arising out the settlement of certain patent litigation concerning generic versions of Seroquel XR^®(extended release quetiapine fumarate). The claims against PPI are based on allegations that PPI entered into an exclusive acquisition and license agreement with Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC (Handa) in 2012 pursuant to which Handa assigned to PPI certain rights under a prior settlement agreement between Handa and AstraZeneca resolving certain patent litigation. Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers; others are non-class action suits. The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law. Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. In October 2019, the defendants filed various motions to dismiss and, in the alternative, moved to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Beginning in June 2020, several alleged indirect purchasers filed proposed class actions against Jazz Pharmaceuticals and other pharmaceutical companies, including PPI, alleging violations of state and federal antitrust laws in connection with the settlement of certain patent litigations concerning generic versions of Xyrem (sodium oxybate). Certain of the complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois while others were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In July, plaintiffs in the Northern District of Illinois cases naming PPI voluntarily dismissed their cases and re-filed them in the Northern District of California. The complaints allege that Jazz entered into a series of “reverse-payment” settlements, including with PPI, to delay generic competition for Xyrem. The various complaints assert claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the Clayton Act, state antitrust and consumer protection statutes and/or state common law. Plaintiffs generally seek damages, treble damages, equitable relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.

To the extent unresolved, we will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

In February 2015, EGHI and affiliates received a CID from the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Alaska seeking documents and information regarding EGHI’s settlement of AndroGel^® patent litigation as well as documents produced in the aforementioned litigation filed by the FTC. Also in February 2015, EHSI received a CID from Alaska’s Office of the Attorney General seeking production of certain documents and information concerning agreements with Actavis and Impax settling OPANA^® ER patent litigation. We are cooperating with the investigations.

In February 2017, a putative class action entitled Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Endo International plc was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania by an institutional purchaser of shares in our June 2, 2015 public offering. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against us, certain of our current and former directors and officers, and the underwriters who participated in the offering, based on certain disclosures about Endo’s generics business. In June 2019, the parties entered into a settlement providing for, among other things, a $50 million payment to the investor class in exchange for a release of their claims. In December 2019, the court denied a petition to intervene filed by the lead plaintiff in the Pelletier litigation described below, and granted final approval of the settlement. In December 2019, the putative intervenor appealed the denial of its petition to intervene and the final approval order to Pennsylvania Superior Court. That appeal remains pending. As a result of the settlement, during the first quarter of 2019, the Company recorded an increase of approximately $50 million to its accrual for loss contingencies. As the Company’s insurers agreed to fund the settlement, the Company also recorded a corresponding insurance receivable of approximately $50 million during the first quarter of 2019, which was recorded as Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. The Company’s insurers funded the settlement during the third quarter of 2019, resulting in corresponding decreases to the Company’s accrual for loss contingencies and insurance receivable.

In April 2017, a putative class action entitled Phaedra A. Makris v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie de Silva and Suketu P. Upadhyay was filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada by an individual shareholder on behalf of herself and similarly-situated Canadian-based investors who purchased Endo’s securities between January 11 and May 5, 2016. The statement of claim sought class certification, declaratory relief, damages, interest and costs based on alleged violations of the Ontario Securities Act arising out of alleged negligent misrepresentations concerning the Company’s revenues, profit margins and earnings per share; its receipt of a subpoena from the state of Connecticut regarding doxycycline hyclate, amitriptyline hydrochloride, doxazosin mesylate, methotrexate sodium and oxybutynin chloride; and the erosion of the Company’s U.S. generic pharmaceuticals business. In January 2019, plaintiff amended her statement of claim to add a claim on behalf of herself and similarly-situated Canadian investors who purchased Endo’s securities between January 11, 2016 and June 8, 2017, based on our decision to voluntarily remove reformulated OPANA^® ER from the market. In April 2020, the parties reached a settlement in principle, which has been submitted for court approval. The amount of the settlement is not material to the Company and is expected to be funded by the Company’s insurers.

In November 2017, a putative class action entitled Pelletier v. Endo International plc, Rajiv Kanishka Liyanaarchchie De Silva, Suketu P. Upadhyay and Paul V. Campanelli was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to the pricing of various generic pharmaceutical products. In June 2018, the court appointed Park Employees’ and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity Benefit Fund of Chicago lead plaintiff in the action. In September 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court granted in part and denied in part in February 2020. In particular, the court granted the motion and dismissed the claims with prejudice insofar as they were based on an alleged price-fixing conspiracy; the court otherwise denied the motion to dismiss, allowing other aspects of lead plaintiff’s claims to proceed. In June 2020, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification.

In June 2020, a putative class action entitled Benoit Albiges v. Endo International plc, Paul V. Campanelli, Blaise Coleman, and Mark T. Bradley was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey by an individual shareholder on behalf of himself and all similarly situated shareholders. The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, relating to the marketing and sale of opioid medications and the New York Department of Financial Services’ administrative action against the Company, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI.

In July 2016, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius) sued our subsidiaries PPCI and Par Sterile Products, LLC (PSP LLC) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition for PPCI’s VASOSTRICT^®, a vasopressin-based cardiopulmonary drug. In particular, Fresenius alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, as well as state antitrust and common law, based on assertions that our subsidiaries entered into exclusive supply agreements with one or more active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) manufacturers and that, as a result, Fresenius could not obtain vasopressin API in order to file an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) to obtain U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for its own vasopressin product. Fresenius sought actual, treble and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees and costs and injunctive relief. In February 2020, the court granted our subsidiaries’ motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied Fresenius’s cross-motion for partial summary judgment. In March 2020, Fresenius filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

In August 2017, our subsidiaries PPI and PSP LLC filed a complaint for actual, exemplary and punitive damages, injunctive relief and other relief against QuVa Pharma, Inc. (QuVa), Stuart Hinchen, Peter Jenkins and Mike Rutkowski in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges misappropriation in violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, New Jersey’s Trade Secrets Act and New Jersey common law, as well as unfair competition, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with contractual relations and breach of the duty of confidence in connection with VASOSTRICT^®. In November 2017, we filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking various forms of relief. In March 2018, the court granted in part our motion for preliminary injunction and enjoined QuVa from marketing and releasing its planned vasopressin product through the conclusion of trial. We subsequently deposited a bond to the court’s interest-bearing account to secure the preliminary injunction. In May 2018, defendants filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals indicating intent to appeal the court’s preliminary injunction. In February 2019, the defendants filed counterclaims for defamation, tortious interference with contract, tortious interference with prospective business relations and witness interference. The counterclaims seek actual, exemplary and punitive damages and other relief. In March 2019, we filed a motion to dismiss all of the defendants’ counterclaims. In April 2019, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the court’s preliminary injunction but remanded for additional fact-finding concerning the duration of the preliminary injunction and, if needed, consideration of the additional trade secrets raised in our motion for preliminary injunction but not addressed by the preliminary injunction order. In September 2019, following the decision in Athenex Inc. v. Azar, No. 19-cv-00603, 2019 WL 3501811 (D.D.C. Aug. 1, 2019), which upheld the FDA’s determination that there is no clinical need for outsourcing facilities to compound drugs using bulk vasopressin, the parties submitted a proposed consent order to the district court agreeing to a lifting of the preliminary injunction against QuVa but reserving PPI and PSP LLC’s right to seek return or reduction of the bond. In January 2020, the court granted our motion to dismiss the defendants’ counterclaims and ordered the preliminary injunction lifted while the bond remains in place pending an adjudication on the merits. In March 2020, we filed a motion for partial summary judgment on the merits of PPI and PSP LLC’s breach of contract claims. That motion is pending.

Beginning in April 2018, PSP LLC and PPI received notice letters from Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, American Regent, Fresenius, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma Limited advising of the filing by such companies of ANDAs/New Drug Applications (NDAs) for generic versions of VASOSTRICT^® (vasopressin IV solution (infusion)) 20 units/ml and/or 200 units/10 ml. Beginning in May 2018, PSP LLC, PPI and Endo Par Innovation Company, LLC filed lawsuits against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, American Regent and Fresenius in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware or New Jersey within the 45-day deadline to invoke a 30-month stay of FDA approval pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman legislative scheme. In May 2020 we reached a settlement with American Regent. In June 2020 we reached a settlement with Sandoz. As a result of settling the Sandoz case, all remaining cases are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The earliest trial is presently scheduled for January 2021; however, a trial may occur earlier or later as timing remains uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors.

We will continue to vigorously defend or prosecute the foregoing matters as appropriate, to protect our intellectual property rights, to pursue all available legal and regulatory avenues and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests. Similar matters may be brought by others or the foregoing matters may be expanded. We are unable to predict the outcome of these matters or to estimate the possible range of any additional losses that could be incurred. Adjustments to our overall liability accrual may be required in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.