Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 12 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Legal Matters* Actavis and its affiliates are involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings, and litigation matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The Company’s general practice is to expense legal fees as services are rendered in connection with legal matters, and to accrue for liabilities when losses are probable and reasonably estimable. We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been accrued previously. At June 30, 2013, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of $227.7 million. This amount includes contingent losses associated with the drug pricing litigation discussed below, as well as additional reserves for potential or known contingent losses. Our legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to mass tort actions and class actions with thousands of putative class members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, qui tam actions, antitrust, product liability, breach of contract, securities, patent infringement and trade practices), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, some matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss. In those proceedings in which plaintiffs do request publicly quantified amounts of relief, we do not believe that the quantified amounts are meaningful because they are merely stated jurisdictional limits, exaggerated and/or unsupported by the evidence or applicable burdens of proof. Cipro^® Litigation. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against the Company, The Rugby Group, Inc. (“Rugby”) and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. Approximately 42 were cases filed against the Company, Rugby and other Company entities. Many of these actions have been dismissed. Actions remain pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to the Company’s acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis (“Sanofi”), related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer’s brand drug, Cipro ^®. The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively terminated the matter. There has been no action in the cases pending in Florida and Tennessee since 2003. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego ( In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220 ), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24, 2009. On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review. On September 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court entered a stay of all proceedings in the case pending a decision from the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that raises similar legal issues. The California Supreme Court lifted the stay on June 26, 2013 following the ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs and Bayer recently announced that they have reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants, including the Company and Rugby. The remaining parties now will resume briefing in this appeal. In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify the Company and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to the Company’s acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions. Governmental Reimbursement Investigations and Drug Pricing Litigation. In November 1999, Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc., now known as Actavis Pharma, Inc. was informed by the U.S. Department of Justice that it, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, is a defendant in a qui tam action brought in 1995 under the U.S. False Claims Act currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Florida Qui Tam Action”). The Company has not been served in the qui tam action. A qui tam action is a civil lawsuit brought by an individual or a company (the “qui tam relator”) for an alleged violation of a federal statute, in which the U.S. Department of Justice has the right to intervene and take over the prosecution of the lawsuit at its option. Pursuant to applicable federal law, the qui tam action is under seal as to Actavis, Inc. The Company believes that the qui tam action relates to whether allegedly improper price reporting by pharmaceutical manufacturers led to increased payments by Medicare and/or Medicaid. The Company believes that the Florida Qui Tam Action against the Company was dismissed without prejudice while still sealed as to the Company. Subsequently, the Company also received and responded to notices or subpoenas from the Attorneys General of various states, including Florida, Nevada, New York, California and Texas, relating to pharmaceutical pricing issues and whether allegedly improper actions by pharmaceutical manufacturers led to excessive payments by Medicare and/or Medicaid. On June 26, 2003, the Company received a request for records and information from the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce in connection with that committee’s investigation into pharmaceutical reimbursements and rebates under Medicaid. The Company produced documents in response to the request. Other state and federal inquiries regarding pricing and reimbursement issues are anticipated. The Company and certain of its subsidiaries also are named as defendants in various lawsuits filed by numerous states and qui tam relators, including Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Utah, Kansas and Louisiana captioned as follows: State of Wisconsin v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Case No. 04-cv-1709, Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County; State of Wisconsin, ex rel., et al. v. Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-5544, Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County; Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Alpharma, Inc., et al., Case Number 04-CI-1487, Kentucky Circuit Court for Franklin County; State of Illinois v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-CH-02474, Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County; State of Mississippi v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. G2005-2021 S/2, Mississippi Chancery Court of Hinds County; State of Missouri ex rel. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon v. Mylan Laboratories, et al, Case No. 054-2486, Missouri Circuit Court of St. Louis; State of South Carolina and Henry D. McMaster v. Watson Pharmaceuticals (New Jersey), Inc., In the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, C.A. No. 2006-CP-40-7152; State of South Carolina and Henry D. McMaster v. Watson Pharmaceuticals (New Jersey), Inc., In the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, C.A. No. 2006-CP-40-7155; State of Utah v. Actavis U.S., Inc., et al., In the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, Civil No. 07-0913719; State of Kansas ex rel. Steve Six v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc., Case Number: 08CV2228, District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, Civil Court Department; and State of Louisiana V. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 596144, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19 ^th Judicial District. In 2011, the Company settled certain claims made against it by a relator in a qui tam action brought against the Company on behalf of the United States. The settlement of that qui tam action resolved all claims on behalf of the United States asserted in that action except for claims relating to the federal share of Medicaid payments made by the States of Alabama, Alaska, Kentucky, Idaho, Illinois, South Carolina and Wisconsin. The Company subsequently settled all claims, including the claims on behalf of the United States, brought by Alabama. The case against the Company on behalf of Kentucky was tried in November 2011. The jury reached a verdict in the Company’s favor on each of Kentucky’s claims against the Company. Kentucky has filed post-trial motions for relief from the jury verdict. The case against the Company on behalf of Mississippi was tried from November 2012 through April 2013. The Company is awaiting a decision in that case. The case against the Company on behalf of Louisiana is scheduled for trial in August 2013. The case against the Company on behalf of Missouri is scheduled for trial in November 2013. The case against the Company on behalf of Kansas is scheduled for trial in January 2014. At June 30, 2013, the Company’s consolidated balance sheets included accrued expenses in connection with the remaining drug pricing actions of $150.4 million. With regard to the remaining drug pricing actions, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in those actions. The Company continually monitors the status of these actions and may settle or otherwise resolve some or all of these matters on terms that the Company deems to be in its best interests. However, the Company can give no assurance that it will be able to settle the remaining actions on terms it deems reasonable, or that such settlements or adverse judgments in the remaining actions, if entered, will not exceed the amounts of the liability reserves. Additional actions by other states, cities and/or counties are anticipated. These actions and/or the actions described above, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Medicaid Drug Reimbursement Litigation. In December 2009, the Company learned that numerous pharmaceutical companies, including certain subsidiaries of the Company, have been named as defendants in a qui tam action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (United States of America ex rel. Constance A. Conrad v. Abbott Loboratories, Inc. et. al., USDC Case No. 02-CV-11738-NG). The seventh amended complaint, which was served on certain of the Company’s subsidiaries in December 2009, alleges that the defendants falsely reported to the United States that certain pharmaceutical products were eligible for Medicaid reimbursement and thereby allegedly caused false claims for payment to be made through the Medicaid program. In July 2011, the plaintiff served a tenth amended complaint that unseals the action in its entirety and continues to allege the previously asserted claims against certain subsidiaries of the Company. The Company’s subsidiaries named in the action together with all other named defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Tenth Amended Complaint on December 9, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to all defendants. The plaintiff may appeal. Additional actions alleging similar claims could be asserted. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations. However, this action or similar actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. FDA Matters. In May 2002, the Company’s subsidiary reached an agreement with the FDA on the terms of a consent decree with respect to its Corona, California manufacturing facility. The court approved the consent decree on May 13, 2002 (United States of America v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., et. al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, EDCV-02-412-VAP). The consent decree applies only to the Company’s Corona, California facility and not other manufacturing sites. The decree requires that the Corona, California facility complies with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) regulations. Pursuant to the agreement, the Company hired an independent expert to conduct inspections of the Corona facility at least once each year. In each year from 2002 through 2012, the independent expert has reported its opinion to the FDA that, based on the findings of the audit of the facility, the FDA’s applicable cGMP requirements, applicable FDA regulatory guidance, and the collective knowledge, education, qualifications and experience of the expert’s auditors and reviewers, the systems at the Corona facility audited and evaluated by the expert are in compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations. However, the FDA is not required to accept or agree with the independent expert’s opinion. The FDA has conducted periodic inspections of the Corona facility since the entry of the consent decree, and concluded its most recent general cGMP inspection in November 2012. At the conclusion of the inspection, the FDA inspectors issued a Form 483 to the facility identifying certain observations concerning the instances where the facility failed to follow cGMP regulations. The facility has responded to the Form 483 observations and has provided the FDA with a corrective action plan to address the observations noted in the Form 483. On April 19, 2013, the independent expert concluded its annual inspection of the Corona, California facility. The independent expert confirmed the types of observations identified by the FDA during its November 2012 inspection, and reported its observations to the FDA in May 2013. During the inspection, the independent expert verified that certain actions in the corrective action plan had been made. The independent expert has agreed to continue to evaluate the corrective actions being taken and to re-inspect the facility during the second half of 2013, and to further evaluate at that time the facility’s compliance with FDA’s cGMP regulations. If in the future, the FDA determines that, with respect to its Corona facility, the Company has failed to comply with the consent decree or FDA regulations, including cGMPs, or has failed to adequately address the FDA’s inspectional observations, the consent decree allows the FDA to order a variety of actions to remedy the deficiencies. These actions could include ceasing manufacturing and related operations at the Corona facility, and recalling affected products. Such actions, if taken by the FDA, could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its results of operations, financial position and cash flows. Androgel^®Antitrust Litigation. On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company’s September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., related to AndroGel^® 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel ^® in exchange for Solvay’s agreement to permit the Company to co-promote Androgel ^® for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228). On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the Company without prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay’s patent in the Food and Drug Administration’s “Orange Book,” and sham litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of Androgel ^® (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-2883); (Jabo’s Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837). On April 20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey. On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re: AndroGel^® Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084), and all currently-pending related actions are presently before that court. On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the consolidated litigations related to Androgel^® then pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the Company’s motions to dismiss the complaints, except the portion of the private plaintiffs’ complaints that include allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission’s action on April 21, 2010. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On December 7, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the FTC’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The hearing on the petition was held on March 25, 2013. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a “rule of reason” standard of review. The case will now be sent back to the Court of Appeals. On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay’s patent in the Food and Drug Administration’s “Orange Book,” and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court’s February 22, 2010 order on the motion to dismiss. In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On September 28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs have appealed. The Company believes that these actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Loestrin 24^® Antitrust Litigation. On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) alleging the Company’s 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin 24 Fe^® (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, “Loestrin 24^®”) is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that the Company and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin 24^® in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa., Civ. No. 13-02000). Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors (A.F. of L. – A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Warner Chilcott, et al., D.N.J. 13-02456, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014). Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307). In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors (American Sales Company, LLC v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347 and Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-133476). On June 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these cases in one federal district court. Defendants’ motion is expected to be heard in late September 2013. Notwithstanding the motion for consolidation, these cases are still in their early stages and discovery has not yet begun on either the class allegations or merits. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations. The Company believes that these actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation. Beginning in early 2004, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of hormone replacement therapy products, including but not limited to estropipate and estradiol. Many of the cases originally filed against the Company and its affiliates have been dismissed. Approximately 13 cases remain pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing claims by 13 plaintiffs. Breast cancer is the alleged injury in the remaining cases. The majority of the cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (In re: Prempro Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1507). Discovery in the individual cases has not been completed. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Fentanyl Transdermal System Litigation. Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of fentanyl transdermal system products, for personal injuries or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of the fentanyl transdermal system products. The Company settled the majority of these cases in November 2012. There are approximately 9 cases that remain pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts that are not part of the November 2012 settlement, representing claims by approximately 21 plaintiffs. Discovery is ongoing. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Metoclopramide Litigation. Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,330 cases are pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs. These cases are generally in their preliminary stages and discovery is ongoing. The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., from whom the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late 2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis companies, the Company is actively defending them. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Fax Litigation Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257). In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a putative class action complaint against the Company alleging conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members’ paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be willful. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations. In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to expand the proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission or an established business relationship to “All persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of Defendant.” In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class of plaintiffs. On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda’s petition to the FCC (discussed below). On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff’s filed their motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008. The motion has been briefed and is currently scheduled for hearing on August 21, 2013. No trial date has been set in the matter. On May 1, 2012, an additional action under the TCPA was filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the “end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent.” (Physicians Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 12 CV 60798). On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The matter is in its preliminary stages and no trial date has been set. Several issues raised in plaintiff’s motion for class certification in the Medical West matter were addressed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case to which Anda is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No. 11-1460. Nack concerned whether there is a private right of action for failing to include any opt-out notice on faxes sent with express permission, contrary to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulation that requires such notice on fax advertisements. The Eighth Circuit granted Anda leave to file an amicus brief and to participate during oral argument in the matter, which was held on September 19, 2012. In its ruling, issued May 21, 2013, the Eighth Circuit held that Nack’s arguments on appeal amounted to challenges to the FCC’s regulation and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such challenges pursuant to the Hobbs Act and it would otherwise not decide any similar challenges without the benefit of full participation by the FCC. In a related matter, on November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring “opt-out” language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the “FCC Petition”). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau’s dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC has not ruled on the application for review. Anda believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, including but not limited to its receipt of consent to receive facsimile advertisements from many of the putative class members, and intends to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Levonorgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets (Generic version of Seasonique^®). On March 6, 2008, Duramed (now known as Teva Women’s Health) sued the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that sales of the Company’s levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol tablets, a generic version of Duramed’s Seasonique ^® tablets, would infringe Duramed’s U.S. Patent No. 7,320,969 (the “969 Patent”) (Duramed v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 08cv00116). The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2010, the District Court granted Duramed’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims are not invalid as obvious. The Company appealed and on March 25, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case for a determination of whether the asserted claims are obvious. On June 9, 2011, Duramed moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from launching its product until after a trial on the merits. On June 16, 2011, the court denied Duramed’s motion. Duramed appealed and also requested temporary injunctive relief during the pendency of its appeal (Duramed v. Watson Laboratories, Case No. 3011-1438). On July 27, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Duramed’s request for temporary relief. Actavis launched its generic product on July 28, 2011. On November 10, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Duramed’s preliminary injunction motion. On August 5, 2011, Duramed filed a motion in the District Court to amend its complaint to add a claim for damages as a result of the Company’s launch of its generic product. On November 18, 2011, the Company moved for summary judgment. On June 29, 2012, in a litigation involving the same patent, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the asserted claims of the patent are invalid. On May 21, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the New Jersey District Court’s judgment that the asserted claims of the patent are invalid. On July 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion for judgment based on the collateral estoppel effect of the New Jersey decision. In response, on July 20, 2012, Duramed filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the Federal Circuit’s decision in the appeal of the New Jersey decision. On July 25, 2012, the Court granted Duramed’s motion to stay and denied without prejudice the Company‘s motion for summary judgment and judgment based on collateral estoppels. On July 8, 2013, Duramed informed the Nevada District Court that it did not intend to pursue further appeals of the Federal Circuit’s finding that the ‘969 Patent is invalid. Duramed and the Company are in discussions concerning the appropriate resolution of the Nevada action. No trial date has been set. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic version of Seasonique^®. Therefore, an adverse ruling in the case or a subsequent final appellate determination that the patent in suit is valid, and that the Company has infringed the patent in suit, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Drospirenone/Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets (Generic version of Yaz^®). On November 5, 2007, Bayer Schering Pharma AG sued the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that sales of the Company’s drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol tablets, a generic version of Bayer’s Yaz ^® tablets, would infringe numerous Bayer patents. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 07cv1472) The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief and included claims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,787,531, U.S. Patent No. RE 37,564, and U.S. Patent No. RE 37,838. The Company filed an amended answer and counterclaims for a Declaratory Judgment of invalidity and/or non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,798,338, 6,933,395, 6,958,326, 7,163,931 and RE 38,253. Thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that U.S. Patent No. 5,787,531 was invalid and the claims related to that patent were dismissed. The District Court subsequently entered a consent judgment that the Company does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,798,338, 6,933,395, 6,958,326, and 7,163,931, and dismissed with prejudice Bayer’s claims related to U.S. Patent Nos. RE 37,838 and RE 38,253. The only patent still in dispute in the Nevada lawsuit is U.S. Patent No. RE 37,564 (the “’564 Patent”). On March 31, 2012, the court granted Bayer’s motion for summary judgment that the ‘564 Patent is not invalid and denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment that the patent is invalid. Actavis timely filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 16, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, finding that the ‘564 patent is invalid. The Company, which had suspended sales of the generic version of the product from January 7, 2012 through March 31, 2012, resumed selling the product in April 2013. On May 15, 2013, Bayer filed a petition for rehearing in the Federal Circuit. The defendants responded to the petition on July 1,2013. The rehearing petition remains pending. If the Company is not ultimately successful in its defense of the lawsuit, it could adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Tranexamic Acid Tablets (Generic version of Lysteda^®). On July 7, 2011, Ferring B.V. sued the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that sales of the Company’s tranexamic acid tablets, a generic version of Ferring’s Lysteda ^® tablets, would infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,947,739 (“the ‘739 patent”) (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00481). On November 25, 2011, Ferring filed a second complaint in the District of Nevada alleging that sales of the Company’s tranexamic acid tables would infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,022,106 (“the ‘106 patent”). (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00853). On November 9, 2012, Ferring filed a third complaint in the District of Nevada alleging that sales of the Company’s tranexamic acid tables would infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,273,795 (“the ‘795 patent”) (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01935). The cases are still pending. The District Court has consolidated all three cases and has set a trial for January 21, 2014. On January 3, 2013, the Company began selling its generic version of Lysteda^®. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic version of Lysteda ^®. Therefore, an adverse final determination that one of the patents in suit is valid and infringed could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Oxymorphone Extended-Release Tablets (Generic version of Opana^® ER). On December 11, 2012, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. sued the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that sales of the Company’s 7.5 mg and 15 mg oxymorphone extended-release tablets, generic versions of Endo’s Opana^® ER, infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,851,482; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216, which the USPTO recently issued or Endo recently acquired. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic versions of Opana^® ER, 7.5 mg and 15 mg. Therefore, an adverse final determination that one of the patents in suit is valid and infringed could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Omeprazole Delayed-release Capsules (Generic version of Prilosec^®). In July 1999, Astra Aktiegolag, Aktiebolaget Hassle, Astra Merck Enterprises Inc. and Astra Merck Inc. (collectively “Astra”) sued Andrx Pharmaceuticals (which the Company acquired in 2006) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that sales of the Company’s omeprazole capsules, a generic version of Astra’s Prilosec^®, would infringe certain U.S. Patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 4,786,505 (“the ‘505 patent”) and 4,853,230 (“the ‘230 patent”) (Astra Aktiebolag et al. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 99cv6893). The complaint sought injunctive relief. This case was then consolidated by the Multi-District Litigation Panel and transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 30, 2002, the District Court entered Final Judgment that the Andrx products would infringe certain claims of the ‘505 patent and the ‘230 patent and that Andrx was enjoined from commercializing its product prior to April 20, 2007. On December 11, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court decision. On February 8, 2010, Astra filed a supplemental complaint in the District Court alleging that in 2001 Andrx manufactured its generic omeprazole capsules in preparation for a launch in the event of a favorable District Court decision. Astra’s supplemental complaint sought damages for that manufacture. On July 12, 2013, the District Court scheduled a jury trial beginning September 30, 2013 on the potential damages in connection with Andrx’s manufacture (but not sale) of its generic omeprazole capsules. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case and intends to vigorously defend against the damage claim. However, if Astra’s action is successful, a damages award could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Alendronate Litigation. Beginning in 2010, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate, for personal injuries including femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw allegedly arising out of the use of alendronate. Approximately 405 cases are pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 515 plaintiffs. These cases are generally at their preliminary stages. The Company believes that it will be defended in, and indemnified for, the majority of these claims by Merck & Co., the New Drug Application holder and manufacturer of the product sold by the Company during most of 2008. In addition, there are 123 lawsuits that name as a defendant Cobalt Laboratories, which the Company acquired in 2009 as part of its acquisition of the Arrow Group, in connection with Cobalt’s manufacture and sale of alendronate. Nineteen of the cases naming the Company and/or Cobalt were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243). In 2012, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL matter. Several of the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and that appeal remains pending. Any cases filed against the Company in the District of New Jersey MDL after the Court’s January 2012 dismissal are subject to a case management order that calls for their dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. To date, no plaintiff with a post-January 2012 complaint in the District of New Jersey against the Company has moved for such exemption have been or are expected to be dismissed. Several other cases are part of an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the Company has filed a similar motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. Seven additional cases are part of consolidated litigation in the California Superior Court (Orange County). Additional individual cases are pending in state court in Missouri. Approximately 385 cases are pending as part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County. In that state court proceeding, responsive pleadings and discovery have been suspended with respect to the Company pending the court’s decision on a motion to dismiss, which the Company filed in March 2012. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Propoxyphene Litigation. Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,385 plaintiffs. Approximately 77 of the cases naming Watson were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (In re: Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2226). Four of the MDL cases were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs with prejudice. On June 22, 2012, the court hearing the MDL cases granted the generic defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. Approximately 34 of the dismissed cases were appealed by the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. No briefing schedule in these cases has been set. Approximately 35 of the cases naming the Company have been consolidated in a state court proceeding pending in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco. These cases are at their preliminary stages and the Company intends to file demurrers and/or motions to dismiss. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company¹s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation. On June 8, 2012, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories’ stock purchasers. The amended complaint generally alleges that between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, Actavis and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of Prochieve^® progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories’ developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth. Actavis licensed the rights to Prochieve^® from Columbia Laboratories in July 2010. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of Prochieve^®. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the amended complaint which the court granted on June 11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 11, 2013. Actavis believes the case is without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses, which it intends to vigorously pursue. Additionally, Actavis maintains insurance to provide coverage for the claims alleged in the action. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. The action, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Ibandronate Tablets (Generic version of Boniva^®). On September 21, 2007, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. sued Cobalt Laboratories, Inc. and Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. (both of which were subsequently acquired by the Company in 2009) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that sales of Ibandronate Tablets, a generic version of Hoffmann-La Roche’s Boniva ^® tablets, would infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 4,927,814 (the ‘814 Patent); 6,294,196 (the ‘196 Patent); and 7,192,938 (the ‘938 Patent) (Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. 07cv4540). The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. Thereafter, Hoffmann-La Roche asserted additional claims, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,410,957 (the ‘957 Patent) and 7,718,634 (the ‘634 patent) against the Company, and the parties entered into stipulations to dismiss Hoffman-La Roche’s claims related to the ‘196 and the ‘938 Patent. On August 24, 2010, the District Court granted Hoffmann-La Roche’s motion for summary judgment that the Company would infringe at least one claim of the ‘814 patent. On March 17, 2012, the ‘814 patent expired, leaving the ‘957 and ‘634 patents as the only patents in suit. On May 7, 2012, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment that the claims of the ‘634 patent are invalid. On October 1, 2012, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment that the claims of the ‘957 patent are invalid. On January 25, 2013 the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment decisions finding the ‘634 patent and ‘957 patents invalid. The plaintiff has appealed. In June 2012, the Company began selling its generic version of Boniva ^®. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic version of Boniva ^®. Therefore, an adverse final appellate determination that one of the patents in suit is valid and infringed could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Generess^® Fe – On November 22, 2011, Warner Chilcott Company sued Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Famy Care Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that sales of norethindrone and ethinyl estradiol and ferrous fumarate tablets, a generic version of Warner Chilcott’s Generess ^® Fe tablets (which is exclusively licensed by the Company), would infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,667,050 (the ‘050 patent) (Warner Chilcott Company LLC v. Mylan Inc., et al., Case No. 11cv6844). The complaint seeks injunctive relief. On December 12, 2011 Warner Chilcott sued Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that sales of Lupin’s generic version of Generess ^® Fe would infringe the ‘050 patent. (Warner Chilcott Company LLC v. Lupin Ltd., et al., Case No. 11cv7228). The complaint seeks injunctive relief. Warner Chilcott’s lawsuits against Mylan and Lupin have been consolidated and remain pending. Pursuant to the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the generic applicants until the earlier of thirty months after the generic applicant provided Warner Chilcott with notice of its abbreviated new drug application filing or the generic applicant prevails in the pending litigation. The court has instructed the parties to be ready for trial by December 2, 2013. The Company believes Warner Chilcott has meritorious claims to prevent the generic applicants from launching a generic version of Generess Fe. However, if a generic applicant prevails in the pending litigation or launches a generic version of Generess Fe before the pending litigation is finally resolved, it could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. West Virginia Prescription Drug Abuse Litigation. On June 26, 2012, the State of West Virginia filed a lawsuit against multiple distributors of prescription drugs, including Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company (State of West Virginia v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, et. al., Boone County Circuit Court Civil Case No. 12-C-141). The complaint generally alleges that the defendants distributed prescription drugs in West Virginia in violation of state statutes, regulation and common law. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages and penalties. On July 26, 2012, a co-defendant removed the case to the federal court for the Southern District of West Virginia. On March 27, 2013, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. The case is in its preliminary stages and the Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, an adverse determination in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Paroxetine Investigation. On April 19, 2013, the Office of Fair Trading issued a Statement of Objections against GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) and various generic drug companies, including Actavis UK Limited, formerly known as Alpharma Limited, now a subsidiary of the Company, alleging that GSK’s settlements with such generic drug companies improperly delayed generic entry of paroxetine, in violation of the United Kingdom’s competition laws. The Company has not yet responded to the Statement of Objections but believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the allegations. However, an adverse determination in the matter could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Actavis and its affiliates are involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

NOTE 12 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Matters

Actavis and its affiliates are involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings, and litigation matters that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. The Company’s general practice is to expense legal fees as services are rendered in connection with legal matters, and to accrue for liabilities when losses are probable and reasonably estimable.

We evaluate, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal proceedings and other matters that could cause an increase or decrease in the amount of the liability that has been accrued previously. At June 30, 2013, the Company’s consolidated balance sheet includes accrued loss contingencies of $227.7 million. This amount includes contingent losses associated with the drug pricing litigation discussed below, as well as additional reserves for potential or known contingent losses.

Our legal proceedings range from cases brought by a single plaintiff to mass tort actions and class actions with thousands of putative class members. These legal proceedings, as well as other matters, involve various aspects of our business and a variety of claims (including, but not limited to, qui tam actions, antitrust, product liability, breach of contract, securities, patent infringement and trade practices), some of which present novel factual allegations and/or unique legal theories. In addition, a number of the matters pending against us are at very early stages of the legal process (which in complex proceedings of the sort faced by us often extend for several years). As a result, some matters have not yet progressed sufficiently through discovery and/or development of important factual information and legal issues to enable us to estimate a range of possible loss. In those proceedings in which plaintiffs do request publicly quantified amounts of relief, we do not believe that the quantified amounts are meaningful because they are merely stated jurisdictional limits, exaggerated and/or unsupported by the evidence or applicable burdens of proof.

Cipro^® Litigation. Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against the Company, The Rugby Group, Inc. (“Rugby”) and other company affiliates in various state and federal courts alleging claims under various federal and state competition and consumer protection laws. Several plaintiffs have filed amended complaints and motions seeking class certification. Approximately 42 were cases filed against the Company, Rugby and other Company entities. Many of these actions have been dismissed. Actions remain pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas, Tennessee, and Florida. The actions generally allege that the defendants engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with alleged agreements, entered into prior to the Company’s acquisition of Rugby from Sanofi Aventis (“Sanofi”), related to the development, manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer’s brand drug, Cipro ^®. The actions generally seek declaratory judgment, damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities. In the action pending in Kansas, the court has administratively terminated the matter. There has been no action in the cases pending in Florida and Tennessee since 2003. In the action pending in the California Superior Court for the County of San Diego ( In re: Cipro Cases I & II, JCCP Proceeding Nos. 4154 & 4220 ), on July 21, 2004, the California Court of Appeal ruled that the majority of the plaintiffs would be permitted to pursue their claims as a class. On August 31, 2009, the California Superior Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and final judgment was entered on September 24, 2009. On October 31, 2011, the California Court of Appeal affirmed the Superior Court’s judgment. On December 13, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a petition for review in the California Supreme Court. On February 15, 2012, the California Supreme Court granted review. On September 12, 2012, the California Supreme Court entered a stay of all proceedings in the case pending a decision from the United States Supreme Court in an unrelated case that raises similar legal issues. The California Supreme Court lifted the stay on June 26, 2013 following the ruling by the United States Supreme Court. Plaintiffs and Bayer recently announced that they have reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against Bayer. Plaintiffs are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants, including the Company and Rugby. The remaining parties now will resume briefing in this appeal.

In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that various state and federal agencies are investigating the allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and indemnify the Company and its affiliates in connection with the claims and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to the Company’s acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of these actions.

Governmental Reimbursement Investigations and Drug Pricing Litigation. In November 1999, Schein Pharmaceutical, Inc., now known as Actavis Pharma, Inc. was informed by the U.S. Department of Justice that it, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, is a defendant in a qui tam action brought in 1995 under the U.S. False Claims Act currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Florida Qui Tam Action”). The Company has not been served in the qui tam action. A qui tam action is a civil lawsuit brought by an individual or a company (the “qui tam relator”) for an alleged violation of a federal statute, in which the U.S. Department of Justice has the right to intervene and take over the prosecution of the lawsuit at its option. Pursuant to applicable federal law, the qui tam action is under seal as to Actavis, Inc. The Company believes that the qui tam action relates to whether allegedly improper price reporting by pharmaceutical manufacturers led to increased payments by Medicare and/or Medicaid. The Company believes that the Florida Qui Tam Action against the Company was dismissed without prejudice while still sealed as to the Company. Subsequently, the Company also received and responded to notices or subpoenas from the Attorneys General of various states, including Florida, Nevada, New York, California and Texas, relating to pharmaceutical pricing issues and whether allegedly improper actions by pharmaceutical manufacturers led to excessive payments by Medicare and/or Medicaid. On June 26, 2003, the Company received a request for records and information from the U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce in connection with that committee’s investigation into pharmaceutical reimbursements and rebates under Medicaid. The Company produced documents in response to the request. Other state and federal inquiries regarding pricing and reimbursement issues are anticipated.

The Company and certain of its subsidiaries also are named as defendants in various lawsuits filed by numerous states and qui tam relators, including Wisconsin, Kentucky, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, South Carolina, Utah, Kansas and Louisiana captioned as follows: State of Wisconsin v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., Case No. 04-cv-1709, Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County; State of Wisconsin, ex rel., et al. v. Actavis Mid Atlantic LLC, et al., Case No. 11-cv-5544, Wisconsin Circuit Court for Dane County; Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Alpharma, Inc., et al., Case Number 04-CI-1487, Kentucky Circuit Court for Franklin County; State of Illinois v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 05-CH-02474, Illinois Circuit Court for Cook County; State of Mississippi v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. G2005-2021 S/2, Mississippi Chancery Court of Hinds County; State of Missouri ex rel. Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon v. Mylan Laboratories, et al, Case No. 054-2486, Missouri Circuit Court of St. Louis; State of South Carolina and Henry D. McMaster v. Watson Pharmaceuticals (New Jersey), Inc., In the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, C.A. No. 2006-CP-40-7152; State of South Carolina and Henry D. McMaster v. Watson Pharmaceuticals (New Jersey), Inc., In the Court of Common Pleas for the Fifth Judicial Circuit, State of South Carolina, County of Richland, C.A. No. 2006-CP-40-7155; State of Utah v. Actavis U.S., Inc., et al., In the Third Judicial District Court of Salt Lake County, Civil No. 07-0913719; State of Kansas ex rel. Steve Six v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Pharma, Inc., Case Number: 08CV2228, District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas, Civil Court Department; and State of Louisiana V. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., Case No. 596144, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19 ^th Judicial District.

In 2011, the Company settled certain claims made against it by a relator in a qui tam action brought against the Company on behalf of the United States. The settlement of that qui tam action resolved all claims on behalf of the United States asserted in that action except for claims relating to the federal share of Medicaid payments made by the States of Alabama, Alaska, Kentucky, Idaho, Illinois, South Carolina and Wisconsin. The Company subsequently settled all claims, including the claims on behalf of the United States, brought by Alabama. The case against the Company on behalf of Kentucky was tried in November 2011. The jury reached a verdict in the Company’s favor on each of Kentucky’s claims against the Company. Kentucky has filed post-trial motions for relief from the jury verdict. The case against the Company on behalf of Mississippi was tried from November 2012 through April 2013. The Company is awaiting a decision in that case. The case against the Company on behalf of Louisiana is scheduled for trial in August 2013. The case against the Company on behalf of Missouri is scheduled for trial in November 2013. The case against the Company on behalf of Kansas is scheduled for trial in January 2014.

At June 30, 2013, the Company’s consolidated balance sheets included accrued expenses in connection with the remaining drug pricing actions of $150.4 million. With regard to the remaining drug pricing actions, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses and intends to vigorously defend itself in those actions. The Company continually monitors the status of these actions and may settle or otherwise resolve some or all of these matters on terms that the Company deems to be in its best interests. However, the Company can give no assurance that it will be able to settle the remaining actions on terms it deems reasonable, or that such settlements or adverse judgments in the remaining actions, if entered, will not exceed the amounts of the liability reserves. Additional actions by other states, cities and/or counties are anticipated. These actions and/or the actions described above, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Medicaid Drug Reimbursement Litigation. In December 2009, the Company learned that numerous pharmaceutical companies, including certain subsidiaries of the Company, have been named as defendants in a qui tam action pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (United States of America ex rel. Constance A. Conrad v. Abbott Loboratories, Inc. et. al., USDC Case No. 02-CV-11738-NG). The seventh amended complaint, which was served on certain of the Company’s subsidiaries in December 2009, alleges that the defendants falsely reported to the United States that certain pharmaceutical products were eligible for Medicaid reimbursement and thereby allegedly caused false claims for payment to be made through the Medicaid program. In July 2011, the plaintiff served a tenth amended complaint that unseals the action in its entirety and continues to allege the previously asserted claims against certain subsidiaries of the Company. The Company’s subsidiaries named in the action together with all other named defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss the Tenth Amended Complaint on December 9, 2011. On February 25, 2013, the court granted the motion to dismiss as to all defendants. The plaintiff may appeal. Additional actions alleging similar claims could be asserted. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to the claims and intends to vigorously defend itself against such allegations. However, this action or similar actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

FDA Matters. In May 2002, the Company’s subsidiary reached an agreement with the FDA on the terms of a consent decree with respect to its Corona, California manufacturing facility. The court approved the consent decree on May 13, 2002 (United States of America v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., et. al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, EDCV-02-412-VAP). The consent decree applies only to the Company’s Corona, California facility and not other manufacturing sites. The decree requires that the Corona, California facility complies with the FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) regulations.

Pursuant to the agreement, the Company hired an independent expert to conduct inspections of the Corona facility at least once each year. In each year from 2002 through 2012, the independent expert has reported its opinion to the FDA that, based on the findings of the audit of the facility, the FDA’s applicable cGMP requirements, applicable FDA regulatory guidance, and the collective knowledge, education, qualifications and experience of the expert’s auditors and reviewers, the systems at the Corona facility audited and evaluated by the expert are in compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations. However, the FDA is not required to accept or agree with the independent expert’s opinion. The FDA has conducted periodic inspections of the Corona facility since the entry of the consent decree, and concluded its most recent general cGMP inspection in November 2012. At the conclusion of the inspection, the FDA inspectors issued a Form 483 to the facility identifying certain observations concerning the instances where the facility failed to follow cGMP regulations. The facility has responded to the Form 483 observations and has provided the FDA with a corrective action plan to address the observations noted in the Form 483. On April 19, 2013, the independent expert concluded its annual inspection of the Corona, California facility. The independent expert confirmed the types of observations identified by the FDA during its November 2012 inspection, and reported its observations to the FDA in May 2013. During the inspection, the independent expert verified that certain actions in the corrective action plan had been made. The independent expert has agreed to continue to evaluate the corrective actions being taken and to re-inspect the facility during the second half of 2013, and to further evaluate at that time the facility’s compliance with FDA’s cGMP regulations. If in the future, the FDA determines that, with respect to its Corona facility, the Company has failed to comply with the consent decree or FDA regulations, including cGMPs, or has failed to adequately address the FDA’s inspectional observations, the consent decree allows the FDA to order a variety of actions to remedy the deficiencies. These actions could include ceasing manufacturing and related operations at the Corona facility, and recalling affected products. Such actions, if taken by the FDA, could have a material adverse effect on the Company, its results of operations, financial position and cash flows.

Androgel^®Antitrust Litigation. On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the State of California filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Federal Trade Commission, et. al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. CV 09-00598) alleging that the Company’s September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement with Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., related to AndroGel^® 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that the Company improperly delayed its launch of a generic version of Androgel ^® in exchange for Solvay’s agreement to permit the Company to co-promote Androgel ^® for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services provided by the Company, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable relief and civil penalties. On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging similar claims were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated claimants (Meijer, Inc., et. al., v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., USDC Case No. EDCV 09-0215); (Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. EDCV 09-0226); (Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. Inc. v. Unimed Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al, Case No. EDCV 09-0228). On April 8, 2009, the Court transferred the government and private cases to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On April 21, 2009 the State of California voluntarily dismissed its lawsuit against the Company without prejudice. The Federal Trade Commission and the private plaintiffs in the Northern District of Georgia filed amended complaints on May 28, 2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay’s patent in the Food and Drug Administration’s “Orange Book,” and sham litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect purchasers of Androgel ^® (Stephen L. LaFrance Pharm., Inc. d/b/a SAJ Dist. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1507); (Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Unimed Pharms. Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1856); (Scurto v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. NJ Civ. No. 09-1900); (United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., D. MN Civ. No. 09-1168); (Rite Aid Corp. et al. v. Unimed Pharms., Inc. et al., M.D. PA Civ. No. 09-1153); (Walgreen Co., et al. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al., MD. PA Civ. No. 09-1240); (Supervalu, Inc. v. Unimed Pharms., LLC, et al, ND. GA Civ. No. 10-1024); (LeGrand v. Unimed Pharms., Inc., et al., ND. GA Civ. No. 10-2883); (Jabo’s Pharmacy Inc. v. Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Cocke County, TN Circuit Court Case No. 31,837). On April 20, 2009, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from the Stephen L. LaFrance action pending in the District of New Jersey. On October 5, 2009, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all actions then pending outside of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to that district for consolidated pre-trial proceedings (In re: AndroGel^® Antitrust Litigation (No. II), MDL Docket No. 2084), and all currently-pending related actions are presently before that court. On February 22, 2010, the judge presiding over all the consolidated litigations related to Androgel^® then pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted the Company’s motions to dismiss the complaints, except the portion of the private plaintiffs’ complaints that include allegations concerning sham litigation. Final judgment in favor of the defendants was entered in the Federal Trade Commission’s action on April 21, 2010. On April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. On December 7, 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the FTC’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. The hearing on the petition was held on March 25, 2013. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies which include a payment from the brand company to the generic competitor must be evaluated under a “rule of reason” standard of review. The case will now be sent back to the Court of Appeals. On July 20, 2010, the plaintiff in the Fraternal Order of Police action filed an amended complaint adding allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, conduct in connection with the listing of Solvay’s patent in the Food and Drug Administration’s “Orange Book,” and sham litigation similar to the claims raised in the direct purchaser actions. On October 28, 2010, the judge presiding over MDL 2084 entered an order pursuant to which the LeGrand action, filed on September 10, 2010, was consolidated for pretrial purposes with the other indirect purchaser class action as part of MDL 2084 and made subject to the Court’s February 22, 2010 order on the motion to dismiss. In February 2012, the direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and on June 22, 2012, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs, including Fraternal Order of Police, LeGrand and HealthNet, filed a motion for leave to amend and consolidate their complaints. On September 28, 2012, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all outstanding claims. The plaintiffs have appealed.

The Company believes that these actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Loestrin 24^® Antitrust Litigation. On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the federal district court (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Pub. Ltd. Co., et al., D.N.J., Civ. No. 13-02178, and United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa., No. 13-01807) alleging the Company’s 2009 patent lawsuit settlement with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin 24 Fe^® (norethindrone acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets, “Loestrin 24^®”) is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that the Company and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed launching generic versions of Loestrin 24^® in exchange for substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. On April 15, 2013, the plaintiff in New York Hotel Trades withdrew its complaint and, on April 16, 2013, refiled it in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Assoc. of New York City, Inc. Health Benefits Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa., Civ. No. 13-02000). Additional complaints have been filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same putative class of end-payors (A.F. of L. – A.G.C. Building Trades Welfare Plan v. Warner Chilcott, et al., D.N.J. 13-02456, Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-02014). Electrical Workers 242 and 294 Health & Welfare Fund v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-2862 and City of Providence v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd. Co., et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 13-307). In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed on behalf of a class of direct payors (American Sales Company, LLC v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd., Co. et al., D.R.I. Civ. No. 12-347 and Rochester Drug Co-Operative Inc., v. Warner Chilcott (US), LLC, et al., E.D.Pa. Civ. No. 13-133476). On June 18, 2013, defendants filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to consolidate these cases in one federal district court. Defendants’ motion is expected to be heard in late September 2013. Notwithstanding the motion for consolidation, these cases are still in their early stages and discovery has not yet begun on either the class allegations or merits. The Company anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar allegations.

Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation. Beginning in early 2004, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, as well as numerous other pharmaceutical companies, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of hormone replacement therapy products, including but not limited to estropipate and estradiol. Many of the cases originally filed against the Company and its affiliates have been dismissed. Approximately 13 cases remain pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing claims by 13 plaintiffs. Breast cancer is the alleged injury in the remaining cases. The majority of the cases have been transferred to and consolidated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas (In re: Prempro Products Liability Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1507). Discovery in the individual cases has not been completed. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Fentanyl Transdermal System Litigation. Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of fentanyl transdermal system products, for personal injuries or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of the fentanyl transdermal system products. The Company settled the majority of these cases in November 2012. There are approximately 9 cases that remain pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts that are not part of the November 2012 settlement, representing claims by approximately 21 plaintiffs. Discovery is ongoing. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Metoclopramide Litigation. Beginning in 2009, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, including legacy Actavis and Watson companies, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of metoclopramide, for personal injuries allegedly arising out of the use of metoclopramide. Approximately 1,330 cases are pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in state and federal courts, representing claims by multiple plaintiffs. These cases are generally in their preliminary stages and discovery is ongoing. The Company believes that, with respect to the majority of the cases against the legacy Watson companies, it will be defended in and indemnified by Pliva, Inc., an affiliate of Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd., from whom the Company purchased its metoclopramide product line in late 2008. With respect to the cases pending against the legacy Actavis companies, the Company is actively defending them. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Fax Litigation

Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, et al. v. Anda, Inc., (Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis, State of Missouri, Case No. 08SL-CC00257). In January 2008, Medical West Ballas Pharmacy, LTD, filed a putative class action complaint against the Company alleging conversion and alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. In April 2008, plaintiff filed an amended complaint substituting Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company, as the defendant. The amended complaint alleges that by sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements, Anda misappropriated the class members’ paper, toner, ink and employee time when they received the alleged unsolicited faxes, and that the alleged unsolicited facsimile advertisements were sent to the plaintiff in violation of the TCPA and Missouri Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The TCPA allows recovery of minimum statutory damages of $500 per violation, which can be trebled if the violations are found to be willful. The complaint seeks to assert class action claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other similarly situated third parties. In April 2008, Anda filed an answer to the amended complaint, denying the allegations. In November 2009, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to expand the proposed class of plaintiffs from individuals for which Anda lacked evidence of express permission or an established business relationship to “All persons who on or after four years prior to the filing of this action, were sent telephone facsimile messages advertising pharmaceutical drugs and products by or on behalf of Defendant.” In November 2010, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint further expanding the definition and scope of the proposed class of plaintiffs. On December 2, 2010, Anda filed a motion to dismiss claims the plaintiff is seeking to assert on behalf of putative class members who expressly consented or agreed to receive faxes from Defendant, or in the alternative, to stay the court proceedings pending resolution of Anda’s petition to the FCC (discussed below). On April 11, 2011, the court denied the motion. On May 19, 2011, the plaintiff’s filed their motion seeking certification of a class of entities with Missouri telephone numbers who were sent Anda faxes for the period January 2004 through January 2008. The motion has been briefed and is currently scheduled for hearing on August 21, 2013. No trial date has been set in the matter.

On May 1, 2012, an additional action under the TCPA was filed by Physicians Healthsource, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the “end users of the fax numbers in the United States but outside Missouri to which faxes advertising pharmaceutical products for sale by Anda were sent.” (Physicians Healthsource Inc. v. Anda Inc. United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, 12 CV 60798). On July 10, 2012, Anda filed its answer and affirmative defenses. The matter is in its preliminary stages and no trial date has been set.

Several issues raised in plaintiff’s motion for class certification in the Medical West matter were addressed by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in an unrelated case to which Anda is not a party, Nack v. Walburg, No. 11-1460. Nack concerned whether there is a private right of action for failing to include any opt-out notice on faxes sent with express permission, contrary to a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Regulation that requires such notice on fax advertisements. The Eighth Circuit granted Anda leave to file an amicus brief and to participate during oral argument in the matter, which was held on September 19, 2012. In its ruling, issued May 21, 2013, the Eighth Circuit held that Nack’s arguments on appeal amounted to challenges to the FCC’s regulation and that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain such challenges pursuant to the Hobbs Act and it would otherwise not decide any similar challenges without the benefit of full participation by the FCC.

In a related matter, on November 30, 2010, Anda filed a petition with the FCC, asking the FCC to clarify the statutory basis for its regulation requiring “opt-out” language on faxes sent with express permission of the recipient (the “FCC Petition”). On May 2, 2012, the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau of the FCC dismissed the FCC Petition. On May 14, 2012, Anda filed an application for review of the Bureau’s dismissal by the full Commission, requesting the FCC to vacate the dismissal and grant the relief sought in the FCC Petition. The FCC has not ruled on the application for review. Anda believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the putative class actions brought under the TCPA, including but not limited to its receipt of consent to receive facsimile advertisements from many of the putative class members, and intends to defend the actions vigorously. However, these actions, if successful, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Levonorgestrel/Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets (Generic version of Seasonique^®). On March 6, 2008, Duramed (now known as Teva Women’s Health) sued the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that sales of the Company’s levonorgestrel/ethinyl estradiol tablets, a generic version of Duramed’s Seasonique ^® tablets, would infringe Duramed’s U.S. Patent No. 7,320,969 (the “969 Patent”) (Duramed v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 08cv00116). The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2010, the District Court granted Duramed’s motion for summary judgment that the asserted claims are not invalid as obvious. The Company appealed and on March 25, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case for a determination of whether the asserted claims are obvious. On June 9, 2011, Duramed moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent the Company from launching its product until after a trial on the merits. On June 16, 2011, the court denied Duramed’s motion. Duramed appealed and also requested temporary injunctive relief during the pendency of its appeal (Duramed v. Watson Laboratories, Case No. 3011-1438). On July 27, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Duramed’s request for temporary relief. Actavis launched its generic product on July 28, 2011. On November 10, 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s denial of Duramed’s preliminary injunction motion. On August 5, 2011, Duramed filed a motion in the District Court to amend its complaint to add a claim for damages as a result of the Company’s launch of its generic product. On November 18, 2011, the Company moved for summary judgment. On June 29, 2012, in a litigation involving the same patent, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the asserted claims of the patent are invalid. On May 21, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the New Jersey District Court’s judgment that the asserted claims of the patent are invalid. On July 9, 2012, the Company filed a motion for judgment based on the collateral estoppel effect of the New Jersey decision. In response, on July 20, 2012, Duramed filed a motion to stay the litigation pending the Federal Circuit’s decision in the appeal of the New Jersey decision. On July 25, 2012, the Court granted Duramed’s motion to stay and denied without prejudice the Company‘s motion for summary judgment and judgment based on collateral estoppels. On July 8, 2013, Duramed informed the Nevada District Court that it did not intend to pursue further appeals of the Federal Circuit’s finding that the ‘969 Patent is invalid. Duramed and the Company are in discussions concerning the appropriate resolution of the Nevada action. No trial date has been set. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic version of Seasonique^®. Therefore, an adverse ruling in the case or a subsequent final appellate determination that the patent in suit is valid, and that the Company has infringed the patent in suit, could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Drospirenone/Ethinyl Estradiol Tablets (Generic version of Yaz^®). On November 5, 2007, Bayer Schering Pharma AG sued the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that sales of the Company’s drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol tablets, a generic version of Bayer’s Yaz ^® tablets, would infringe numerous Bayer patents. Bayer Schering Pharma AG v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 07cv1472) The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief and included claims related to U.S. Patent No. 5,787,531, U.S. Patent No. RE 37,564, and U.S. Patent No. RE 37,838. The Company filed an amended answer and counterclaims for a Declaratory Judgment of invalidity and/or non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,798,338, 6,933,395, 6,958,326, 7,163,931 and RE 38,253. Thereafter, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that U.S. Patent No. 5,787,531 was invalid and the claims related to that patent were dismissed. The District Court subsequently entered a consent judgment that the Company does not infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 5,798,338, 6,933,395, 6,958,326, and 7,163,931, and dismissed with prejudice Bayer’s claims related to U.S. Patent Nos. RE 37,838 and RE 38,253. The only patent still in dispute in the Nevada lawsuit is U.S. Patent No. RE 37,564 (the “’564 Patent”). On March 31, 2012, the court granted Bayer’s motion for summary judgment that the ‘564 Patent is not invalid and denied the Company’s motion for summary judgment that the patent is invalid. Actavis timely filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 16, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, finding that the ‘564 patent is invalid. The Company, which had suspended sales of the generic version of the product from January 7, 2012 through March 31, 2012, resumed selling the product in April 2013. On May 15, 2013, Bayer filed a petition for rehearing in the Federal Circuit. The defendants responded to the petition on July 1,2013. The rehearing petition remains pending. If the Company is not ultimately successful in its defense of the lawsuit, it could adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Tranexamic Acid Tablets (Generic version of Lysteda^®). On July 7, 2011, Ferring B.V. sued the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, alleging that sales of the Company’s tranexamic acid tablets, a generic version of Ferring’s Lysteda ^® tablets, would infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,947,739 (“the ‘739 patent”) (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00481). On November 25, 2011, Ferring filed a second complaint in the District of Nevada alleging that sales of the Company’s tranexamic acid tables would infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,022,106 (“the ‘106 patent”). (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 3:11-cv-00853). On November 9, 2012, Ferring filed a third complaint in the District of Nevada alleging that sales of the Company’s tranexamic acid tables would infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,273,795 (“the ‘795 patent”) (Ferring B.V. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:12-cv-01935). The cases are still pending. The District Court has consolidated all three cases and has set a trial for January 21, 2014. On January 3, 2013, the Company began selling its generic version of Lysteda^®. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic version of Lysteda ^®. Therefore, an adverse final determination that one of the patents in suit is valid and infringed could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Oxymorphone Extended-Release Tablets (Generic version of Opana^® ER). On December 11, 2012, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. sued the Company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that sales of the Company’s 7.5 mg and 15 mg oxymorphone extended-release tablets, generic versions of Endo’s Opana^® ER, infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,851,482; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216, which the USPTO recently issued or Endo recently acquired. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic versions of Opana^® ER, 7.5 mg and 15 mg. Therefore, an adverse final determination that one of the patents in suit is valid and infringed could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Omeprazole Delayed-release Capsules (Generic version of Prilosec^®). In July 1999, Astra Aktiegolag, Aktiebolaget Hassle, Astra Merck Enterprises Inc. and Astra Merck Inc. (collectively “Astra”) sued Andrx Pharmaceuticals (which the Company acquired in 2006) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging that sales of the Company’s omeprazole capsules, a generic version of Astra’s Prilosec^®, would infringe certain U.S. Patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 4,786,505 (“the ‘505 patent”) and 4,853,230 (“the ‘230 patent”) (Astra Aktiebolag et al. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 99cv6893). The complaint sought injunctive relief. This case was then consolidated by the Multi-District Litigation Panel and transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On October 30, 2002, the District Court entered Final Judgment that the Andrx products would infringe certain claims of the ‘505 patent and the ‘230 patent and that Andrx was enjoined from commercializing its product prior to April 20, 2007. On December 11, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court decision. On February 8, 2010, Astra filed a supplemental complaint in the District Court alleging that in 2001 Andrx manufactured its generic omeprazole capsules in preparation for a launch in the event of a favorable District Court decision. Astra’s supplemental complaint sought damages for that manufacture. On July 12, 2013, the District Court scheduled a jury trial beginning September 30, 2013 on the potential damages in connection with Andrx’s manufacture (but not sale) of its generic omeprazole capsules. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case and intends to vigorously defend against the damage claim. However, if Astra’s action is successful, a damages award could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Alendronate Litigation. Beginning in 2010, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company and certain Company affiliates, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of alendronate, for personal injuries including femur fractures and osteonecrosis of the jaw allegedly arising out of the use of alendronate. Approximately 405 cases are pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 515 plaintiffs. These cases are generally at their preliminary stages. The Company believes that it will be defended in, and indemnified for, the majority of these claims by Merck & Co., the New Drug Application holder and manufacturer of the product sold by the Company during most of 2008. In addition, there are 123 lawsuits that name as a defendant Cobalt Laboratories, which the Company acquired in 2009 as part of its acquisition of the Arrow Group, in connection with Cobalt’s manufacture and sale of alendronate. Nineteen of the cases naming the Company and/or Cobalt were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re: Fosamax (Alendronate Sodium) Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2243). In 2012, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all of the cases then pending against the Company in the New Jersey MDL matter. Several of the plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and that appeal remains pending. Any cases filed against the Company in the District of New Jersey MDL after the Court’s January 2012 dismissal are subject to a case management order that calls for their dismissal unless plaintiffs can establish that their claims should be exempted from the 2012 dismissal order. To date, no plaintiff with a post-January 2012 complaint in the District of New Jersey against the Company has moved for such exemption have been or are expected to be dismissed. Several other cases are part of an MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, where the Company has filed a similar motion to dismiss. That motion is pending. Seven additional cases are part of consolidated litigation in the California Superior Court (Orange County). Additional individual cases are pending in state court in Missouri. Approximately 385 cases are pending as part of a mass tort coordinated proceeding in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Atlantic County. In that state court proceeding, responsive pleadings and discovery have been suspended with respect to the Company pending the court’s decision on a motion to dismiss, which the Company filed in March 2012. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if our indemnification arrangements or insurance do not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Propoxyphene Litigation. Beginning in 2011, a number of product liability suits were filed against the Company, as well as other manufacturers and distributors of propoxyphene, for personal injuries including adverse cardiovascular events or deaths allegedly arising out of the use of propoxyphene. Cases are pending against the Company and/or its affiliates in various state and federal courts, representing claims by approximately 1,385 plaintiffs. Approximately 77 of the cases naming Watson were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings as part of a multi-district litigation (MDL) matter pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky (In re: Darvocet, Darvon, and Propoxyphene Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2226). Four of the MDL cases were voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs with prejudice. On June 22, 2012, the court hearing the MDL cases granted the generic defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the remaining MDL cases. Approximately 34 of the dismissed cases were appealed by the plaintiffs to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. No briefing schedule in these cases has been set. Approximately 35 of the cases naming the Company have been consolidated in a state court proceeding pending in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco. These cases are at their preliminary stages and the Company intends to file demurrers and/or motions to dismiss. The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses to these cases and maintains product liability insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company¹s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation. On June 8, 2012, the Company and certain of its officers were named as defendants in a consolidated amended class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re: Columbia Laboratories, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 12-614) by a putative class of Columbia Laboratories’ stock purchasers. The amended complaint generally alleges that between December 6, 2010 and January 20, 2012, Actavis and certain of its officers, as well as Columbia Laboratories and certain of its officers, made false and misleading statements regarding the likelihood of Columbia Laboratories obtaining FDA approval of Prochieve^® progesterone gel, Columbia Laboratories’ developmental drug for prevention of preterm birth. Actavis licensed the rights to Prochieve^® from Columbia Laboratories in July 2010. The amended complaint further alleges that the defendants failed to disclose material information concerning the statistical analysis of the clinical studies performed by Columbia Laboratories in connection with its pursuit of FDA approval of Prochieve^®. The complaint seeks unspecified damages. On August 14, 2012, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the amended complaint which the court granted on June 11, 2013. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on July 11, 2013. Actavis believes the case is without merit and that it has substantial meritorious defenses, which it intends to vigorously pursue. Additionally, Actavis maintains insurance to provide coverage for the claims alleged in the action. However, litigation is inherently uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this litigation. The action, if successful, or if insurance does not provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Ibandronate Tablets (Generic version of Boniva^®). On September 21, 2007, Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. sued Cobalt Laboratories, Inc. and Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. (both of which were subsequently acquired by the Company in 2009) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that sales of Ibandronate Tablets, a generic version of Hoffmann-La Roche’s Boniva ^® tablets, would infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 4,927,814 (the ‘814 Patent); 6,294,196 (the ‘196 Patent); and 7,192,938 (the ‘938 Patent) (Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc., et. al., Case No. 07cv4540). The complaint sought damages and injunctive relief. Thereafter, Hoffmann-La Roche asserted additional claims, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,410,957 (the ‘957 Patent) and 7,718,634 (the ‘634 patent) against the Company, and the parties entered into stipulations to dismiss Hoffman-La Roche’s claims related to the ‘196 and the ‘938 Patent. On August 24, 2010, the District Court granted Hoffmann-La Roche’s motion for summary judgment that the Company would infringe at least one claim of the ‘814 patent. On March 17, 2012, the ‘814 patent expired, leaving the ‘957 and ‘634 patents as the only patents in suit. On May 7, 2012, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment that the claims of the ‘634 patent are invalid. On October 1, 2012, the District Court granted the Company’s motion for summary judgment that the claims of the ‘957 patent are invalid. On January 25, 2013 the District Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment decisions finding the ‘634 patent and ‘957 patents invalid. The plaintiff has appealed. In June 2012, the Company began selling its generic version of Boniva ^®. The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the case. However, the Company has sold and is continuing to sell its generic version of Boniva ^®. Therefore, an adverse final appellate determination that one of the patents in suit is valid and infringed could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Generess^® Fe – On November 22, 2011, Warner Chilcott Company sued Mylan Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Famy Care Ltd. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that sales of norethindrone and ethinyl estradiol and ferrous fumarate tablets, a generic version of Warner Chilcott’s Generess ^® Fe tablets (which is exclusively licensed by the Company), would infringe U.S. Patent No. 6,667,050 (the ‘050 patent) (Warner Chilcott Company LLC v. Mylan Inc., et al., Case No. 11cv6844). The complaint seeks injunctive relief. On December 12, 2011 Warner Chilcott sued Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that sales of Lupin’s generic version of Generess ^® Fe would infringe the ‘050 patent. (Warner Chilcott Company LLC v. Lupin Ltd., et al., Case No. 11cv7228). The complaint seeks injunctive relief. Warner Chilcott’s lawsuits against Mylan and Lupin have been consolidated and remain pending. Pursuant to the provisions of the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA is precluded from granting final approval to the generic applicants until the earlier of thirty months after the generic applicant provided Warner Chilcott with notice of its abbreviated new drug application filing or the generic applicant prevails in the pending litigation. The court has instructed the parties to be ready for trial by December 2, 2013. The Company believes Warner Chilcott has meritorious claims to prevent the generic applicants from launching a generic version of Generess Fe. However, if a generic applicant prevails in the pending litigation or launches a generic version of Generess Fe before the pending litigation is finally resolved, it could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

West Virginia Prescription Drug Abuse Litigation. On June 26, 2012, the State of West Virginia filed a lawsuit against multiple distributors of prescription drugs, including Anda, Inc., a subsidiary of the Company (State of West Virginia v. Amerisourcebergen Drug Corporation, et. al., Boone County Circuit Court Civil Case No. 12-C-141). The complaint generally alleges that the defendants distributed prescription drugs in West Virginia in violation of state statutes, regulation and common law. The complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified damages and penalties. On July 26, 2012, a co-defendant removed the case to the federal court for the Southern District of West Virginia. On March 27, 2013, the court granted plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court. The case is in its preliminary stages and the Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims alleged. However, an adverse determination in the case could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Paroxetine Investigation. On April 19, 2013, the Office of Fair Trading issued a Statement of Objections against GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) and various generic drug companies, including Actavis UK Limited, formerly known as Alpharma Limited, now a subsidiary of the Company, alleging that GSK’s settlements with such generic drug companies improperly delayed generic entry of paroxetine, in violation of the United Kingdom’s competition laws. The Company has not yet responded to the Statement of Objections but believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the allegations. However, an adverse determination in the matter could have an adverse effect on the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Actavis and its affiliates are involved in various other disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inspections, inquires, investigations and proceedings that could result in litigation, and other litigation matters that arise from time to time. The process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain and it is possible that an unfavorable resolution of these matters will adversely affect the Company, its results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.