We and certain of our subsidiaries are involved in various claims, legal proceedings and internal and governmental investigations (collectively, proceedings) arising 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. We are subject to a number of matters that are not being disclosed herein because, in the opinion of our management, these matters are immaterial both individually and in the aggregate with respect to our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

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.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, 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 in the amounts that we expect or that coverage will otherwise be available. We may not have and may be unable to obtain or maintain insurance on acceptable terms or with adequate coverage against potential liabilities or other losses, including costs, judgments, settlements and other liabilities incurred in connection with current or future legal proceedings, regardless of the success or failure of the claim. For example, we do not have insurance sufficient to satisfy all of the opioid claims that have been made against us and, should we suffer an adverse judgment, appeal and similar bonds may not be available in such amounts as may be necessary to further challenge all or part of such judgment. We also generally no longer have product liability insurance to cover claims in connection with the mesh-related litigation described below. Additionally, we may be limited by the surviving insurance policies of acquired entities, which may not be adequate to cover against potential liabilities or other losses. Even where claims are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, there can be no assurance that the claims will be covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable or will not challenge our right to reimbursement in whole or in part. The failure to generate sufficient cash flow or to obtain other financing could affect our ability to pay the amounts due under those liabilities not covered by insurance. Additionally, the nature of our business, the legal proceedings to which we are exposed and any losses we suffer may increase the cost of insurance, which could impact our decisions regarding our insurance programs.

As a result of the possibility or occurrence of an unfavorable outcome with respect to any legal proceeding, we have engaged in and, at any given time, may further engage in strategic reviews of all or a portion of our business. Any such review or contingency planning could ultimately result in our pursuing one or more significant corporate transactions or other remedial measures, including on a preventative or proactive basis. Actions that may be evaluated or pursued could include reorganization or restructuring activities of all or a portion of our business, asset sales or other divestitures, cost-saving initiatives or other corporate realignments, seeking strategic partnerships and exiting certain product or geographic markets. Some of these actions could take significant time to implement and others may require judicial or other third-party approval. As further described below, thousands of governmental persons and entities and private plaintiffs have filed suit against us and/or certain of our subsidiaries alleging opioid-related claims. We have not been able to settle most of the opioid claims made against us and, as a result, we are exploring a wide array of potential actions as part of our contingency planning. These actions could include a bankruptcy filing which, if it were to occur, would subject us to additional risks and uncertainties that could adversely affect our business prospects and ability to continue as a going concern, including, but not limited to, by causing increased difficulty obtaining and maintaining commercial relationships on competitive terms with customers, suppliers and other counterparts; increased difficulty retaining and motivating key employees, as well as attracting new employees; diversion of management’s time and attention to dealing with bankruptcy and restructuring activities rather than focusing exclusively on business operations; incurrence of substantial costs, fees and other expenses associated with bankruptcy proceedings; and loss of ability to maintain or obtain sufficient financing sources for operations or to fund any reorganization plan and meet future obligations. We would, in that event, also be subject to risks and uncertainties caused by the actions of creditors and other third parties with interests that may be inconsistent with our plans. Certain of these risks and uncertainties could also occur if our suppliers or other third parties believe that we may pursue one or more significant corporate transactions or other remedial measures.

As of September 30, 2021, our accrual for loss contingencies totaled $395.8 million, the most significant components of which relate to: (i) product liability and related matters associated with transvaginal surgical mesh products, which we have not sold since March 2016, and (ii) a settlement relating to the Pelletier securities case described below, which remains subject to court approval and is expected to be funded by the Company’s insurers. Although we believe there is a 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 September 30, 2021, 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., 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). We 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 as of September 30, 2021. 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 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.

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), Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI), Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. (PPCI), Endo Generics Holdings, Inc. (EGHI), Vintage Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Generics Bidco I, LLC, DAVA Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Par Sterile Products, LLC (PSP LLC) and in Canada, Paladin and Endo Ventures Limited, 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 October 28, 2021, 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 2,920 cases filed by counties, cities, Native American tribes and/or other government-related persons or entities; approximately 310 cases filed by hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds or other third-party payers and approximately 190 cases filed by individuals, including but not limited to legal guardians of children born with neonatal abstinence syndrome. Certain of the U.S. cases have been filed as putative class actions; to date, however, no court has certified a litigation class. 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 in Alberta by the City of Grand Prairie, Alberta, and The Corporation of the City of Brantford, Ontario, on behalf of a proposed class of all local or municipal governments in Canada; an action filed in Saskatchewan by the Peter Ballantyne Cree Nation and the Lac La Ronge Indian Band, on behalf of a proposed class of all First Nations communities and local or municipal governments in Canada; and 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.

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 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. The damages sought exceed our applicable insurance.

Many of the U.S. cases have been coordinated in a federal multidistrict litigation (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. Some cases are at the pleading or discovery stage; others are at the trial stage or may otherwise be nearing a decision. For example, a bench trial on liability began in April 2021 in People of the State of California v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al., a case pending in Superior Court in Orange County, California. The plaintiffs in the case, Orange, Santa Clara and Los Angeles Counties and the City of Oakland, assert claims against EPI and EHSI, among others, for public nuisance, alleged violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law and alleged violations of California’s False Advertising Law. In November 2021, the court issued a tentative decision in defendants’ favor on all counts and directed defendants to submit a proposed statement of decision and proposed judgment within thirty days. Under current schedules, the next trial is set for February 2022 in County of Dallas v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. before the 116th Judicial District Court (Dallas, Texas). Other cases have also been set for trial in various courts around the country. Trials may occur earlier or later than currently scheduled, as timing remains uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors.

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. In July 2021, DFS filed an amended statement of charges. The amended 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. A hearing previously set for June 2021 was adjourned; a status conference is currently set for February 2022. In July 2021, EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI, among others, filed a petition for judgment in New York state court seeking to prohibit DFS from proceeding with its administrative enforcement action.

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.

In July 2021, EPI and EHSI executed a settlement agreement with nine counties in eastern Tennessee, eighteen municipalities within those counties and a minor individual, all of whom were plaintiffs in a case filed in the Circuit Court for Sullivan County, Tennessee as Staubus, et al. v Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., and later known as Sullivan County, et al. v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al. The plaintiffs asserted claims under the Tennessee Drug Dealer Liability Act (DDLA) and claimed to be seeking economic damages of approximately $2.5 billion, as well as other relief, including exemplary damages of $10 billion. In April 2021, the court issued an order granting a default judgment on liability against EPI and EHSI and awarding the plaintiffs fees and costs relating to certain discovery issues. The parties’ settlement, which provides for a payment of $35 million, was reached shortly before a scheduled trial limited to the issue of damages. We recorded an accrual for this amount during the second quarter of 2021. 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.

In September 2021, Endo and its subsidiaries EPI, EHSI, PPI and PPCI executed a settlement agreement with certain plaintiffs in In re Opioid Litigation, pending in Suffolk County Supreme Court in the State of New York. The settlement resolved the claims of the State of New York and two of its counties. The settlement was reached partway through a jury trial on the issue of liability on those plaintiffs’ public nuisance claims. In August 2021, as trial was ongoing, the court, on the plaintiffs’ motion, issued an order to show cause why it should not impose sanctions, including a default judgment on liability, for alleged discovery misconduct; the plaintiffs subsequently sought additional sanctions. The parties’ settlement resolved the plaintiffs’ claims, including the motion for sanctions, as to the settling parties and provided for a payment of $50 million. We recorded an accrual for this amount during the third quarter of 2021. 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.

In September 2021, EPI and EHSI reached an agreement in principle with the Louisiana Attorney General’s office to settle all opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Louisiana governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $7.5 million. The settlement, including the payment, will be subject to participation by Louisiana’s political subdivisions and the execution of definitive documentation. We recorded an accrual for this amount during the third quarter of 2021. The settlement will include no admission of wrongdoing, fault or liability of any kind by us or any of our subsidiaries.

In October 2021, EPI and EHSI executed a settlement agreement with the Alabama Attorney General’s office intended to resolve all opioid-related cases and claims of the state and other Alabama governmental persons and entities in exchange for a total payment of $25 million. The settlement was reached shortly before a scheduled trial. The settlement, including the payment, will be subject to participation by Alabama’s political subdivisions. We recorded an accrual for this amount during the third quarter of 2021. The settlement includes no admission of wrongdoing, fault or liability of any kind by us or any of our subsidiaries.

To the extent unresolved, we will continue to vigorously defend the foregoing matters and to explore other options as appropriate in our best interests, including entering into settlement negotiations and settlements even in circumstances where we believe we have meritorious defenses. 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 June 2020, an MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, In re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, was expanded to add PPI and numerous other manufacturers and distributors of generic ranitidine as defendants. The claims are generally based on allegations that under certain conditions the active ingredient in Zantac® and generic ranitidine medications can break down to form an alleged carcinogen known as N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). The complaints assert a variety of claims, including but not limited to various product liability, breach of warranty, fraud, negligence, statutory and unjust enrichment claims. Plaintiffs generally seek various remedies including, without limitation, compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys’ fees and costs as well as injunctive and/or other relief. Similar complaints against various defendants have also been filed in certain state courts, including California and Pennsylvania, and PPI currently is named in two state court actions, one of which has been removed to federal court. PPI and its subsidiaries have not manufactured or sold ranitidine since 2016.

The MDL court has issued various case management orders, including orders directing the filing of “master” and short-form complaints, establishing a census registry process for potential claimants and addressing various discovery issues. In December 2020, the court dismissed the master complaints as to PPI and other defendants with leave to amend certain claims. Certain plaintiffs, including third party payers pursuing class action claims, have appealed the dismissal orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. In February 2021, various other plaintiffs filed an amended master personal injury complaint, a consolidated amended consumer economic loss class action complaint and a consolidated medical monitoring class action complaint. PPI was not named as a defendant in the consumer economic loss complaint or the medical monitoring complaint. In July 2021, the MDL court dismissed all claims in the master complaints as to PPI and other generic defendants with prejudice on federal preemption grounds. Certain MDL Plaintiffs have appealed the July 2021 dismissal order.

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.

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 generally 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 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 between 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 April 2020, defendants filed motions for summary judgment and certain evidentiary motions. In June 2021, the court denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment, granted in part and denied in part defendants’ evidentiary motions and granted direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. In August 2021, following an appeal and remand from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the district court amended its class certification order to certify a narrower end-payer class. Trial is currently scheduled for June 2022; however, the timing of trials is uncertain due to the impact of COVID-19 and other factors.

Beginning in February 2009, the U.S. 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; a settlement with that remaining plaintiff was reached in April 2021. 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. The case is currently in discovery.

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. In August 2020, the Southern District of New York granted the motion to transfer without ruling on the motions to dismiss. In January 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss in the District of Delaware, which remain pending.

Beginning in June 2020, multiple complaints were filed 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). Some cases were filed on behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers; others are non-class action suits. The cases have generally been consolidated and/or coordinated for pretrial proceedings in a federal MDL pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The various complaints allege that Jazz entered into a series of “reverse-payment” settlements, including with PPI, to delay generic competition for Xyrem® and 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. In April 2021, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaints that had been filed as of that time. In August 2021, the court issued an order dismissing certain aspects of plaintiffs’ claims but otherwise denying the motions to dismiss. The cases are currently in discovery.

Beginning in June 2021, multiple complaints were filed on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Takeda Pharmaceuticals, PPI and us, alleging violations of federal antitrust law in connection with the settlement of certain patent litigation related to generic versions of Amitiza® (lubiprostone). The complaints allege that Takeda and PPI entered into a settlement agreement that delayed the entry of generic Amitiza® and assert claims under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs seek damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs.

In August 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals, EPI, PPI and others, alleging violations of federal antitrust law in connection with the settlement of certain patent litigation related to generic versions of Colcrys® (colchicine). The complaint alleges, among other things, that a distribution agreement between Takeda and Par with respect to an authorized generic was in effect an output restriction conspiracy. The plaintiff asserts claims under Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act and seeks damages, treble damages and attorneys’ fees and costs. In November 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss.

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 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 the lead plaintiff’s claims to proceed. In June 2020, the lead plaintiff moved for class certification. In February 2021, the court replaced the existing lead plaintiff with the Bucks County Employees’ Retirement Fund, appointed Alexandre Pelletier, Nathan Dole and Wayne Wingard as co-lead plaintiffs and ordered supplemental briefing on class certification. The court granted Wingard’s motion to withdraw as a co-lead plaintiff in April 2021. In May 2021, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In July 2021, defendants filed a motion to modify the class definition and remove Mr. Pelletier as a class representative in light of certain expert disclosures by plaintiffs. In June 2021, defendants moved for summary judgment on certain grounds. In October 2021, the parties entered into a settlement, subject to court approval, which provides for a payment of $63.4 million to the investor class in exchange for a release of their claims. The court preliminarily approved the settlement in October 2021 and scheduled a final approval hearing for February 2022. As a result of the settlement, during the third quarter of 2021, the Company recorded an increase of approximately $63.4 million to its accrual for loss contingencies. As the Company’s insurers are expected to fund the settlement, the Company also recorded a corresponding insurance receivable of approximately $63.4 million during the third quarter of 2021, which was recorded as Prepaid expenses and other current assets in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

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 alleged 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 September 2020, the court appointed Curtis Laakso lead plaintiff in the action. The lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint in November 2020. In January 2021, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. In August 2021, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint without prejudice, and granted plaintiffs leave to file a further amended complaint.

In July 2016, Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC (Fresenius) sued our subsidiaries PPCI and 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 January 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the district court’s order granting our subsidiaries’ motion for summary judgment and remanded for further consideration of that motion. In October 2021, following supplemental summary judgment briefing, the district court granted our subsidiaries’ motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied Fresenius’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

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 December 2020, we separately filed suit against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Aurobindo Pharma Limited in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in connection with a newly issued VASOSTRICT® genotyping patent. Beginning in May 2020 through January 2021, we reached settlements with American Regent, Sandoz, Inc., Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Fresenius, Aurobindo Pharma Limited and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. We have voluntarily dismissed all cases pending against those defendants. The remaining Delaware cases against Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC have been consolidated and a trial was held in July 2021. In August of 2021, the court issued an opinion holding that Eagle’s proposed generic product will not infringe Par’s asserted patent claims. The court made no finding regarding the validity of the patents. We have appealed that ruling. The introduction of any competing versions of VASOSTRICT® could result in significant reductions to our market share, revenues and cash flows, both in the short term and long term, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

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.