Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	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. Litigation Related to the Merger Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG On April 22, 2018, Fresenius Kabi AG delivered to Akorn a letter purporting to terminate the Merger Agreement. On April 23, 2018, Akorn filed a verified complaint entitled Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Quercus Acquisition, Inc. and Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) the defendants anticipatorily breached their obligations under the Merger Agreement by repudiating their obligation to close the Merger, (ii) the defendants knowingly and intentionally breached their obligations under the Merger Agreement by working to slow the antitrust approval process and by engaging in a series of actions designed to hamper and ultimately block the Merger and (iii) Akorn had performed its obligations under the Merger Agreement, and was ready, willing and able to close the Merger. The complaint sought, among other things, a declaration that Fresenius Kabi AG's termination was invalid, an order enjoining the defendants from terminating the Merger Agreement, and an order compelling the defendants to specifically perform their obligations under the Merger Agreement to use reasonable best efforts to consummate and make effective the Merger. On April 30, 2018, the defendants filed a verified counterclaim alleging that, due primarily to purported data integrity deficiencies, the Company had breached representations, warranties and covenants in the Merger Agreement, and that it had experienced a material adverse effect. The verified counterclaim sought, among other things, a declaration that defendants’ purported termination of the Merger Agreement was valid and that defendants were not obligated to consummate the transaction, and damages. Following expedited discovery, from July 9 to 13, 2018, the Court of Chancery held a trial on the parties’ claims (the “Delaware Action”). At the conclusion of trial, the Court of Chancery ordered post-trial briefing, which was completed on August 20, 2018, and a post-trial hearing, which was held on August 23, 2018. On October 1, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) denying Akorn’s claims for relief and concluding that Fresenius Kabi AG had validly terminated the Merger Agreement. The Court of Chancery concluded that Akorn had experienced a material adverse effect due to its financial performance following the signing of the Merger Agreement; that Akorn had breached representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement and that those breaches would reasonably be expected to give rise to a material adverse effect; that Akorn had materially breached covenants in the Merger Agreement; and that Fresenius was materially in compliance with its own contractual obligations. On October 17, 2018, the Court of Chancery entered partial final judgment against Akorn on its claims and in favor of the Fresenius parties on their claims for declaratory judgment. The Court of Chancery entered an order holding proceedings on the Fresenius parties’ damages claims in abeyance pending the resolution of any appeal from the partial final judgment. On October 18, 2018, Akorn filed a notice of appeal from the Opinion and the partial final judgment, as well as a motion seeking expedited treatment of its appeal. On October 23, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court granted Akorn's motion for expedited treatment and set a hearing on Akorn's appeal for December 5, 2018. On December 7, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s opinion denying Akorn’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and granting Defendants’ counterclaim for a declaration that the termination was valid. On December 27, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a mandate returning the case to the Court of Chancery for consideration of all remaining issues, including the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. On January 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter to the Court of Chancery seeking thirty days to discuss the potential resolution of the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. On February 19, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter advising the Court that they have been unable to resolve the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. The Fresenius parties stated their intention to seek leave to amend their counterclaims to assert a new claim for fraud and that they would seek an expedited trial on such claim purportedly due to Akorn’s financial condition. Akorn stated that it expected to oppose the motions for amendment and expedition, and that it would move to dismiss the Fresenius parties’ damages claims in their entirety. On February 20, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a motion for leave to amend and supplement their counterclaim. The Fresenius parties’ proposed amended and supplemented counterclaim alleges that Akorn fraudulently induced Fresenius to enter into the Merger Agreement and thereafter breached contractual representations and warranties and covenants therein. It seeks damages of approximately $102 million. On February 25, 2019, Akorn filed an opposition to the Fresenius parties’ motion for leave to amend and supplement their counterclaim, arguing that the motion was untimely and prejudicial. On February 27, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a reply in further support of their motion to file an amended and supplemented counterclaim. On February 28, 2019, the Court of Chancery denied the Fresenius parties’ motion for leave to file an amended and supplemented counterclaim. Other Matters State of Louisiana v. Hi-Tech, et. al The Louisiana Attorney General filed suit, Number 624,522, State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana state court, including Hi-Tech Pharmacal and other defendants. 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. After extensive motion and appellate practice, on October 3, 2017, the trial court issued a judgment holding that for the one remaining claim, brought under Louisiana’s unfair trade practices claim, Louisiana could not seek civil penalties for conduct pre-dating June 2, 2006. The defendants filed an application for supervisory writs with the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit on October 24, 2017, seeking reversal of the trial court’s denial of their no cause of action exception with respect to the unfair trade practices claim, which the First Circuit denied the writ on July 24, 2018. In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief Accounting Officer Randall Pollard. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity at the Company. The Complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company disputes these claims. On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co. Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and amending the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation. On June 14, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the PSLRA stay of discovery. On June 22, 2018, the Company filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to lift the PSLRA stay. On June 26, 2018, the Court denied the motion to lift the PSLRA stay, subject to entry of a preservation order. On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald M. Johnson, Brian Tambi, John Kapoor, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Steven J. Meyer and Terry A. Rappuhn. The amended complaint asserts (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Fraud Claims”) against Defendants Akorn, Rai, Portwood, Silverberg, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Proxy Claims”) against defendants Akorn, Rai, Kapoor, Weinstein, Abramowitz, Graves, Johnson, Meyer, Rappuhn and Tambi. The amended complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn’s manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company’s data integrity at its facilities. The amended complaint alleges that corrective information was provided to the market on two separate dates, causing non-insider shareholders to lose over $1.07 billion and $613 million in value respectively. The amended complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages. On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and defendants. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ motion, dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice; dismissing defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn without prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with prejudice. On December 19, 2018, the remaining defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint, disputing the plaintiffs’ remaining allegations. The parties are presently engaged in fact discovery. Wickstrom v. Akorn, Inc. et al. On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rajat Rai and Duane Portwood. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the Company’s facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. Kogut v. Akorn, et. al. On March 8, 2016, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative derivative suit entitled Kogut v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in Louisiana state court in the Parish of East Baton Rouge. On June 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting shareholder derivative claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s accounting for its acquisition and the restatement of its financials. On September 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. The case was subsequently stayed. On September 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which added claims for shareholder derivative claims alleging breaches by certain present and former officers and directors of Akorn of fiduciary duties related to, among other matters, Akorn’s compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and requirements regarding data integrity. On December 3, 2018, the Company and certain individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on January 31, 2019. In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation On October 15, 2018, Dale Trsar, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative suit captioned Trsar v. Kapoor, et al., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL. The suit alleged breaches by certain present and former officers and directors of Akorn of fiduciary duties related to, among other matters, Akorn’s compliance with FDA regulations and requirements regarding data integrity. On October 26, 2018, Trsar moved to dismiss the complaint voluntarily. On November 5, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff Trsar’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. On November 6, 2018, Trsar filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Trsar v. Kapoor, et al. against defendants John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Trsar Action”). The complaint purports to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; and (ii) the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to Akorn shareholders on November 14, 2016 and March 20, 2017. The complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages. On December 10, 2018, Felix Glaubach, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Glaubach v. Kapoor, et al. against John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Mark M. Silverberg, Duane A. Portwood, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson, and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Glaubach Action”). The complaint purported to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; (ii) John N. Kapoor and Brian Tambi breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by misappropriating inside information in connection with sales of the Company’s stock; (iii) Rajat Rai and Duane A. Portwood were unjustly enriched; (iv) the Defendants wasted the Company’s assets; and (v) the Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to the Company’s shareholders. The complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages. On January 11, the Glaubach Action was consolidated with the Trsar Action, with the complaint filed in the Trsar Action designated as operative, and the case caption was amended to In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation. On January 14, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 14, 2019. Pope v. Akorn Sales Inc. and Akorn, Inc. On April 7, 2017, a jury in the State Court of Houston County in the State of Georgia reached a verdict of $20.5 million in damages against Akorn, Inc. in a product liability case, Ann Pope and Anthony Pope v. Horatio V. Cabasares, M.D., Horatio V. Cabasares, M.D., P.C. Houston Healthcare Systems, Inc., Akorn Sales, Inc., and Akorn, Inc., in which plaintiffs claimed the Company provided inadequate labeling on its product methylene blue. While an intermediate appellate decision affirmed the verdict on November 2, 2018, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court on November 29, 2018, challenging liability as well as the compensatory and punitive damage awards. The legal matters discussed above and others 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. Regarding the aforementioned labeling verdict and intermediate appellate decision related to Methylene Blue Injection, the Company has recorded a $20.5 million liability as of December 31, 2018 for which a corresponding insurance receivable $10 million is also recorded. The Company maintains product liability insurance coverage in excess of the amount of the verdict and will seek to enforce its coverage rights in excess of the $10 million receivable noted above. The Company recorded a $5 million contingent liability as of December 31, 2018 related to damage claims. Regarding the other matters disclosed above, the Company has determined that contingent liabilities associated with these legal matters are reasonably possible but they cannot be reasonably estimated. Given the nature of the litigation and investigations 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.

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.

Litigation Related to the Merger

Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG

On April 22, 2018, Fresenius Kabi AG delivered to Akorn a letter purporting to terminate the Merger Agreement. On April 23, 2018, Akorn filed a verified complaint entitled Akorn, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi AG, Quercus Acquisition, Inc. and Fresenius SE & Co. KGaA, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for breach of contract and declaratory judgment. The complaint alleged, among other things, that (i) the defendants anticipatorily breached their obligations under the Merger Agreement by repudiating their obligation to close the Merger, (ii) the defendants knowingly and intentionally breached their obligations under the Merger Agreement by working to slow the antitrust approval process and by engaging in a series of actions designed to hamper and ultimately block the Merger and (iii) Akorn had performed its obligations under the Merger Agreement, and was ready, willing and able to close the Merger. The complaint sought, among other things, a declaration that Fresenius Kabi AG's termination was invalid, an order enjoining the defendants from terminating the Merger Agreement, and an order compelling the defendants to specifically perform their obligations under the Merger Agreement to use reasonable best efforts to consummate and make effective the Merger. On April 30, 2018, the defendants filed a verified counterclaim alleging that, due primarily to purported data integrity deficiencies, the Company had breached representations, warranties and covenants in the Merger Agreement, and that it had experienced a material adverse effect. The verified counterclaim sought, among other things, a declaration that defendants’ purported termination of the Merger Agreement was valid and that defendants were not obligated to consummate the transaction, and damages.

Following expedited discovery, from July 9 to 13, 2018, the Court of Chancery held a trial on the parties’ claims (the “Delaware Action”). At the conclusion of trial, the Court of Chancery ordered post-trial briefing, which was completed on August 20, 2018, and a post-trial hearing, which was held on August 23, 2018.

On October 1, 2018, the Court of Chancery issued an opinion (the “Opinion”) denying Akorn’s claims for relief and concluding that Fresenius Kabi AG had validly terminated the Merger Agreement. The Court of Chancery concluded that Akorn had experienced a material adverse effect due to its financial performance following the signing of the Merger Agreement; that Akorn had breached representations and warranties in the Merger Agreement and that those breaches would reasonably be expected to give rise to a material adverse effect; that Akorn had materially breached covenants in the Merger Agreement; and that Fresenius was materially in compliance with its own contractual obligations. On October 17, 2018, the Court of Chancery entered partial final judgment against Akorn on its claims and in favor of the Fresenius parties on their claims for declaratory judgment. The Court of Chancery entered an order holding proceedings on the Fresenius parties’ damages claims in abeyance pending the resolution of any appeal from the partial final judgment.

On October 18, 2018, Akorn filed a notice of appeal from the Opinion and the partial final judgment, as well as a motion seeking expedited treatment of its appeal. On October 23, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court granted Akorn's motion for expedited treatment and set a hearing on Akorn's appeal for December 5, 2018. On December 7, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s opinion denying Akorn’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief and granting Defendants’ counterclaim for a declaration that the termination was valid. On December 27, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court issued a mandate returning the case to the Court of Chancery for consideration of all remaining issues, including the Fresenius parties’ damages claims.

On January 15, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter to the Court of Chancery seeking thirty days to discuss the potential resolution of the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. On February 19, 2019, the parties filed a joint letter advising the Court that they have been unable to resolve the Fresenius parties’ damages claims. The Fresenius parties stated their intention to seek leave to amend their counterclaims to assert a new claim for fraud and that they would seek an expedited trial on such claim purportedly due to Akorn’s financial condition. Akorn stated that it expected to oppose the motions for amendment and expedition, and that it would move to dismiss the Fresenius parties’ damages claims in their entirety.

On February 20, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a motion for leave to amend and supplement their counterclaim. The Fresenius parties’ proposed amended and supplemented counterclaim alleges that Akorn fraudulently induced Fresenius to enter into the Merger Agreement and thereafter breached contractual representations and warranties and covenants therein. It seeks damages of approximately $102 million. On February 25, 2019, Akorn filed an opposition to the Fresenius parties’ motion for leave to amend and supplement their counterclaim, arguing that the motion was untimely and prejudicial. On February 27, 2019, the Fresenius parties filed a reply in further support of their motion to file an amended and supplemented counterclaim. On February 28, 2019, the Court of Chancery denied the Fresenius parties’ motion for leave to file an amended and supplemented counterclaim.

Other Matters

State of Louisiana v. Hi-Tech, et. al

The Louisiana Attorney General filed suit, Number 624,522, State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, Louisiana state court, including Hi-Tech Pharmacal and other defendants. 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. After extensive motion and appellate practice, on October 3, 2017, the trial court issued a judgment holding that for the one remaining claim, brought under Louisiana’s unfair trade practices claim, Louisiana could not seek civil penalties for conduct pre-dating June 2, 2006. The defendants filed an application for supervisory writs with the Court of Appeal for the First Circuit on October 24, 2017, seeking reversal of the trial court’s denial of their no cause of action exception with respect to the unfair trade practices claim, which the First Circuit denied the writ on July 24, 2018.

In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation

On March 8, 2018, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint entitled Joshi Living Trust v. Akorn, Inc. et al., in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint named as defendants the Company, Chief Executive Officer Rajat Rai, Chief Financial Officer Duane Portwood and Chief Accounting Officer Randall Pollard. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions by failing to disclose sooner the existence of investigations into data integrity at the Company. The Complaint sought, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses. The Company disputes these claims.

On May 31, 2018, the Court issued an order appointing Gabelli & Co. Investment Advisors, Inc. and Gabelli Funds, LLC as lead plaintiffs pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”), approving their selection of lead counsel and liaison counsel and amending the case caption to In re Akorn, Inc. Data Integrity Securities Litigation. On June 14, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed a motion to lift the PSLRA stay of discovery. On June 22, 2018, the Company filed a memorandum in opposition to the motion to lift the PSLRA stay. On June 26, 2018, the Court denied the motion to lift the PSLRA stay, subject to entry of a preservation order.

On September 5, 2018, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Ronald M. Johnson, Brian Tambi, John Kapoor, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Adrienne L. Graves, Steven J. Meyer and Terry A. Rappuhn. The amended complaint asserts (i) claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Fraud Claims”) against Defendants Akorn, Rai, Portwood, Silverberg, Weinstein, Johnson and Tambi; and (ii) claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Proxy Claims”) against defendants Akorn, Rai, Kapoor, Weinstein, Abramowitz, Graves, Johnson, Meyer, Rappuhn and Tambi. The amended complaint alleges that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded widespread institutional data integrity problems at Akorn’s manufacturing and research and development facilities, while making or causing Akorn to make contrary misleading statements and omissions of material fact concerning the Company’s data integrity at its facilities. The amended complaint alleges that corrective information was provided to the market on two separate dates, causing non-insider shareholders to lose over $1.07 billion and $613 million in value respectively. The amended complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages.

On October 29, 2018, the parties filed a stipulation and joint motion providing for the dismissal of certain claims and defendants. On October 30, 2018, the Court granted the parties’ motion, dismissing the Proxy Claims without prejudice; dismissing defendants Kapoor, Abramowitz, Graves, Meyer and Rappuhn without prejudice; and dismissing Defendant Silverberg with prejudice.

On December 19, 2018, the remaining defendants filed an answer to the amended complaint, disputing the plaintiffs’ remaining allegations. The parties are presently engaged in fact discovery.

Wickstrom v. Akorn, Inc. et al.

On February 21, 2019, Plaintiff Johnny Wickstrom, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint names as defendants the Company, Rajat Rai and Duane Portwood. The complaint alleged that defendants made materially false or misleading statements and/or material omissions concerning its compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and that those misstatements were corrected when the Company disclosed its receipt from the FDA of a warning letter at the Company’s facility in Decatur, IL. The complaint seeks, among other things, an award of damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Kogut v. Akorn, et. al.

On March 8, 2016, a purported shareholder of the Company filed a putative derivative suit entitled Kogut v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in Louisiana state court in the Parish of East Baton Rouge. On June 10, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting shareholder derivative claims alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in connection with the Company’s accounting for its acquisition and the restatement of its financials. On September 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the case. The case was subsequently stayed. On September 21, 2018, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, which added claims for shareholder derivative claims alleging breaches by certain present and former officers and directors of Akorn of fiduciary duties related to, among other matters, Akorn’s compliance with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulations and requirements regarding data integrity. On December 3, 2018, the Company and certain individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on January 31, 2019.

In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation

On October 15, 2018, Dale Trsar, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative suit captioned Trsar v. Kapoor, et al., in the Circuit Court of Cook County, IL. The suit alleged breaches by certain present and former officers and directors of Akorn of fiduciary duties related to, among other matters, Akorn’s compliance with FDA regulations and requirements regarding data integrity. On October 26, 2018, Trsar moved to dismiss the complaint voluntarily. On November 5, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff Trsar’s motion and dismissed the complaint without prejudice.

On November 6, 2018, Trsar filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Trsar v. Kapoor, et al. against defendants John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Duane A. Portwood, Mark M. Silverberg, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Trsar Action”). The complaint purports to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; and (ii) the defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to Akorn shareholders on November 14, 2016 and March 20, 2017. The complaint seeks an award of equitable relief and damages.

On December 10, 2018, Felix Glaubach, a purported shareholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative complaint captioned Glaubach v. Kapoor, et al. against John N. Kapoor, Rajat Rai, Mark M. Silverberg, Duane A. Portwood, Alan Weinstein, Kenneth S. Abramowitz, Steven J. Meyer, Terry Allison Rappuhn, Adrienne L. Graves, Ronald M. Johnson, and Brian Tambi in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the “Glaubach Action”). The complaint purported to allege derivatively on behalf of the Company that (i) the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by failing to address the Company’s alleged non-compliance with FDA regulations; (ii) John N. Kapoor and Brian Tambi breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders by misappropriating inside information in connection with sales of the Company’s stock; (iii) Rajat Rai and Duane A. Portwood were unjustly enriched; (iv) the Defendants wasted the Company’s assets; and (v) the Defendants violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, by making false or misleading statements in proxy statements issued to the Company’s shareholders. The complaint sought an award of equitable relief and damages. On January 11, the Glaubach Action was consolidated with the Trsar Action, with the complaint filed in the Trsar Action designated as operative, and the case caption was amended to In re Akorn, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation.

On January 14, 2019, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the operative complaint in the consolidated action. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss on February 14, 2019.

Pope v. Akorn Sales Inc. and Akorn, Inc.

On April 7, 2017, a jury in the State Court of Houston County in the State of Georgia reached a verdict of $20.5 million in damages against Akorn, Inc. in a product liability case, Ann Pope and Anthony Pope v. Horatio V. Cabasares, M.D., Horatio V. Cabasares, M.D., P.C. Houston Healthcare Systems, Inc., Akorn Sales, Inc., and Akorn, Inc., in which plaintiffs claimed the Company provided inadequate labeling on its product methylene blue. While an intermediate appellate decision affirmed the verdict on November 2, 2018, the Company filed a petition for certiorari with the Georgia Supreme Court on November 29, 2018, challenging liability as well as the compensatory and punitive damage awards.

The legal matters discussed above and others 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. Regarding the aforementioned labeling verdict and intermediate appellate decision related to Methylene Blue Injection, the Company has recorded a $20.5 million liability as of December 31, 2018 for which a corresponding insurance receivable $10 million is also recorded. The Company maintains product liability insurance coverage in excess of the amount of the verdict and will seek to enforce its coverage rights in excess of the $10 million receivable noted above. The Company recorded a $5 million contingent liability as of December 31, 2018 related to damage claims. Regarding the other matters disclosed above, the Company has determined that contingent liabilities associated with these legal matters are reasonably possible but they cannot be reasonably estimated. Given the nature of the litigation and investigations 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.