COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

The Company has entered into strategic business agreements for the development and marketing of finished dosage form pharmaceutical products with various pharmaceutical development companies.

Each strategic business agreement includes a future payment schedule for contingent milestone payments and in certain strategic business agreements, minimum royalty payments. The Company will be responsible for contingent milestone payments and minimum royalty payments to these strategic business partners based upon the occurrence of future events. Each strategic business agreement defines the triggering event of its future payment schedule, such as meeting product development progress timelines, successful product testing and validation, successful clinical studies, various FDA and other regulatory approvals and other factors as negotiated. None of the contingent milestone payments or minimum royalty payments are individually material to the Company.

The Company is engaged in various supply agreements with third parties which obligate the Company to purchase various API or finished products at contractual minimum levels. None of these agreements are individually or in aggregate material to the Company. Further, the Company does not believe at this time that any of the purchase obligations represent levels above that of normal business demands.

The table below summarizes contingent potential milestone payments due to strategic partners in the years 2016 and beyond, assuming all such contingencies occur (in thousands):



Year ending December 31,	Amount
2016	$	6,992
2017	6,203
2018	1,750
2019 and Beyond	—
Total	$	14,945

Legal Proceedings

The Company is a party to legal proceedings and potential claims arising in the ordinary course of our business. The amount, if any, of ultimate liability with respect to such matters cannot be determined, but despite the inherent uncertainties of litigation, management of the Company believes that the ultimate disposition of such proceedings and exposure will not have a material adverse impact on the financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows of the Company. Set forth below is a listing of potentially material legal proceedings of the Company in existence as of the date of filing this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q.

Shareholder and Derivative Litigation. On March 4, 2015, a purported class action complaint was filed entitled Yeung v. Akorn, Inc., at el., in the federal district court of Northern District of Illinois, No. 15-cv-1944. The complaint alleged that the Company and three of its officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with matters related to its accounting and financial reporting in the wake of its acquisitions of Hi-Tech Pharmacal Co., Inc. and VersaPharm, Inc. A second, related case entitled Sarzynski v. Akorn, Inc., et al., No. 15- cv-3921, was filed on May 4, 2015 making similar allegations. On August 24, 2015, the two cases were consolidated and a lead plaintiff group appointed in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation. On July 6, 2016, the lead plaintiff group filed a consolidated amended complaint making similar allegations against the Company and an officer and former officer of the Company. The consolidated amended complaint seeks damages on behalf of the putative class. The Company disputes the allegations and intends to vigorously contest the matter.

The Company's Board of Directors also received shareholder demand letters and three shareholder derivative lawsuits have been filed alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and other claims in connection with the Company's accounting for its acquisition and restatement of its financials. The demands request that legal action be taken against certain of the Company’s directors and officers or former officers and other actions. The Company’s Board of Directors formed a special committee to conduct an inquiry into the demand allegations and to provide its conclusions and recommendations to the Board.

The derivative lawsuits, Safriet v. Rai, et al., No. 15-cv-7275, and Glaubach v. Rai, et al., No. 15- 11129, both filed in the Northern District of Illinois have been stayed pending anticipated rulings on any motions to dismiss the defendants may file in In re Akorn, Inc. Securities Litigation.

Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Akorn Inc., Sean Brynjelsen, and Michael Stehn, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 12-cv-07692-LLS. Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC ("Fera") filed this action on September 12, 2012. The defendants in the case are the Company and two of its employees, Sean Brynjelsen and Michael Stehn. The amended complaint generally alleges that the Company breached certain terms of a contract manufacturing supply agreement by, among other things, failing to manufacture Fera's products, raising the manufacturing cost, and impermissibly terminating the contract. In addition, Fera alleges that the Company misappropriated Fera's trade secrets in order to manufacture Erythromycin and Bacitracin for its own benefit. The counts in the amended complaint are for (1) breach of contract, (2) misappropriation of trade secrets, (3) fraudulent inducement, and (4) declaratory and injunctive relief. Fera seeks $135 million in compensatory damages, an additional, unspecified amount in punitive damages, and injunctive relief restraining the Company from selling the products at issue in the case. The Company filed a counterclaim against Fera and certain affiliates, as well as Perrigo Company of Tennessee and Perrigo Company plc, asserting violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and tortious interference with business relations. The case is still in the discovery phase, and no trial date has been scheduled.

State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., The Louisiana Attorney General filed suit, Number 624,522, Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, including Hi-Tech Pharmacal, and other defendants in Louisiana state court. Louisiana's complaint alleges that the defendants violated Louisiana state laws in connection with Medicaid reimbursement for certain vitamins, dietary supplements, and DESI products that were allegedly ineligible for reimbursement. The defendants filed exceptions of no cause of action and no right of action in response to Louisiana’s amended complaint. In a judgment entered on October 2, 2015, the trial court sustained the defendants' exception of no right of action, which dismissed all of Louisiana's claims. Louisiana sought appellate review of the court's decision by filing an application for supervisory writs, as well as an appeal pending in the First Circuit Court of Appeal in Louisiana.

Former Hi-Tech director and employee Reuben Seltzer delivered to the Company a demand letter in August 2014 alleging that the Company breached his employment agreement and improperly terminated Mr. Seltzer’s employment. Mr. Seltzer further alleges that he is entitled to compensation in the approximate amount of $5.2 million. The Company disputes these claims and intends to vigorously defend these allegations.

Other Matters

The Chicago Regional Office of the SEC is conducting an investigation regarding the previously disclosed financial statement restatement, internal control weaknesses and other related matters. Additionally, the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York ("USAO") has requested information regarding these matters. Akorn has been furnishing requested information and is fully cooperating with the SEC and USAO.

The legal matters discussed above could result in losses, including damages, fines and civil penalties, and criminal charges, which could be substantial. We record accruals for these contingencies to the extent that we conclude that a loss is both probable and reasonably estimable. As of the date of this filing, although the Company has determined that liabilities associated with these legal matters are reasonably possible, they cannot be reasonably estimated. Given the nature of the litigation and investigations discussed above and the complexities involved, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any, will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation or investigation. However, we could incur judgments, enter into settlements or revise our expectations regarding the outcome of certain matters, and such developments could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations in the period in which the amounts are accrued and/or our cash flows in the period in which the amounts are paid.