Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings

Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings To date, thirteen putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc., regarding the pricing of generic pharmaceuticals, including econazole nitrate. 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 pharmaceuticals from as early as July 1, 2009 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. The actions have been consolidated 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. On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs’ claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21, 2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019. This motion remains pending. On December 19, 2019 certain class plaintiffs filed a further complaint that included additional claims against the Company based on the Company’s sales of fluocinolone acetonide. A motion to dismiss this complaint has not yet been filed.

“Opt-out” antitrust lawsuits have additionally been filed against the Company by various plaintiffs, including Humana Inc.; The Kroger Co. et al.; United HealthCare Services, Inc.; Molina Healthcare, Inc.; MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; Health Care Service Corp.; and Harris County, Texas. All but one of these complaints have been consolidated into the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Each of the opt-out complaints names up to forty-seven defendants (including the Company) and involves allegations regarding the pricing of econazole along with up to 180 other drug products, most of which were not manufactured or sold by the Company during the period at issue. The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for the drug products identified in the complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and some also seek injunctive relief. A motion to dismiss the Humana Inc. and The Kroger Co., et al. opt-out complaints was filed on February 21, 2019. A motion to dismiss the remaining opt-out complaints has not yet been filed.

Due to the early stage of these cases, the Company is 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. The Company believes these cases are without merit and it intends 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 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. The arbitrator has issued an interim award finding that the Company is not liable to Stayma on two of Stayma’s three claims against the Company. The third claim will proceed to a damages phase. The Company has argued that Stayma did not suffer any damages related to this claim and will vigorously pursue complete dismissal of the third claim. In addition, the arbitrator will determine money damages owed by Stayma to the Company relating to Stayma’s failure to pay several past due invoices of approximately $1.7 million.

On December 13, 2018, Valdepharm SA filed a lawsuit alleging that the Company breached contracts regarding two drug products that the Company had sought to have Valdepharm manufacture. On February 12, 2019 the Company answered the complaint and counterclaimed, alleging that Valdepharm breached the contracts by failing to perform its work in compliance with FDA regulations and current Good Manufacturing Practices. Each party seeks damages associated with the alleged breach and related claims. Due to the early stage of the case the Company is 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. The Company believes the claims against Teligent are without merit, and it intends to vigorously defend against them.

On April 15, 2019 a federal class action was filed the Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System against the Company and certain individual defendants in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Teligent, Inc. securities from March 7, 2017 through November 6, 2017. The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies in violation of U.S. securities laws. The plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages. Due to the early stage of these cases, the Company is 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.The Company believes these cases are without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against these claims.