Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings	Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings The Company is involved from time to time in claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company has made adequate provision for potential liabilities, if any, arising from any such matters. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the costs and other effects of pending or future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in any such matters, and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and operating results. To date, twelve putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo Company PLC regarding the pricing of econazole nitrate cream. The actions have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter, and consolidated into direct purchaser, end payer and indirect reseller actions. The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid, and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to fix prices for generic econazole in violation of federal antitrust laws or state antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for generic econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and the end payer and indirect reseller class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. All of these cases are in their initial stages and motions to dismiss have been filed with respect to each of the complaints. Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. On October 20, 2017, a Demand for Arbitration was filed with the American Arbitration Association by Stayma Consulting Services, Inc. (“Stayma”) against the Company regarding the Company’s development and manufacture for Stayma of two generic drug products, one a lotion and one a cream, containing 0.05% of the active pharmaceutical ingredient flurandrenolide. The Company developed the two products and Stayma purchased commercial quantities of each; however, Stayma now alleges that the Company breached agreements between the parties by developing an additional and different generic drug product, an ointment, containing flurandrenolide, and failing to meet certain contractual requirements. Stayma seeks monetary damages. Due to the early stage of this matter, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe this case is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims.We filed a counter-claim against Stayma for its failure to pay several past due invoices of approximately $1.7 million relating to the development and commercial supply of the two subject products.

Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is involved from time to time in claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In the opinion of management, the Company has made adequate provision for potential liabilities, if any, arising from any such matters. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the costs and other effects of pending or future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in any such matters, and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and operating results.

To date, twelve putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo Company PLC regarding the pricing of econazole nitrate cream. The actions have been transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter, and consolidated into direct purchaser, end payer and indirect reseller actions.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid, and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

The plaintiffs allege a conspiracy to fix prices for generic econazole in violation of federal antitrust laws or state antitrust, consumer protection, and other laws. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for generic econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and the end payer and indirect reseller class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants.

All of these cases are in their initial stages and motions to dismiss have been filed with respect to each of the complaints. Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

On October 20, 2017, a Demand for Arbitration was filed with the American Arbitration Association by Stayma Consulting Services, Inc. (“Stayma”) against the Company regarding the Company’s development and manufacture for Stayma of two generic drug products, one a lotion and one a cream, containing 0.05% of the active pharmaceutical ingredient flurandrenolide. The Company developed the two products and Stayma purchased commercial quantities of each; however, Stayma now alleges that the Company breached agreements between the parties by developing an additional and different generic drug product, an ointment, containing flurandrenolide, and failing to meet certain contractual requirements. Stayma seeks monetary damages. Due to the early stage of this matter, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe this case is without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims.We filed a counter-claim against Stayma for its failure to pay several past due invoices of approximately $1.7 million relating to the development and commercial supply of the two subject products.