Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jul. 01, 2017
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES In view of the inherent difficulties of predicting the outcome of various types of legal proceedings, we cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when losses associated with the claims become probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved for those matters. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably be estimated as of July 1, 2017, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against the Company, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We currently believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously regardless of whether or not we have a loss reserve. Other than what is disclosed below, we do not expect the outcome of the litigation matters to which we are currently subject to individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Antitrust Violations We have been named as a counterclaim co-defendant in the lawsuit Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in which Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”) alleges tortious interference and antitrust violations against us and Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Fera”). This litigation arises from our acquisition of bacitracin ophthalmic ointment from Fera in 2013. Akorn asserts claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act alleging that we and Fera conspired to monopolize, attempted to monopolize, and did unlawfully monopolize the market for sterile bacitracin ophthalmic ointment in the United States through the use of an exclusive agreement with a supplier of sterile bacitracin active pharmaceutical ingredient. The lawsuit is currently pending in the Southern District of New York. A mediation is scheduled for September 2017 and a trial is set for January 2018. Akorn seeks damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. Any award of antitrust damages would be subject to trebling under antitrust laws. An estimate of any possible loss cannot be determined at this time. We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have preserved our indemnification rights against Fera for potential liability, defense costs, and expenses incurred as a result of this litigation. Price-Fixing Lawsuits We have been named as a co-defendant with other manufacturers in a number of cases alleging that we and other manufacturers of the same product engaged in anti-competitive behavior to fix or raise the prices of certain drugs starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013. The products in question are Clobetasol, Desonide, and Econazole and one complaint involving Levothyroxine, a product that we neither made nor sold. At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the liability, if any, associated with these claims. Securities Litigation In the United States On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Roofers’ Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016. On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class action against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold put options on the Company shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order. On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case and the Wilson case. The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders for the period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017, and identifies three subclasses - shareholders who traded during the entire period on the US exchanges; shareholders who traded during the entire period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who traded during the period while the Mylan tender offer was pending (April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015). The amended complaint names as defendants the Company and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class period related to purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri^® royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate of damages. The time for the defendants to respond to the amended complaint has not yet expired. We will defend the lawsuit vigorously. In Israel Because the Company’s shares are traded on the Tel Aviv exchange under a dual trading arrangement, the Company is subject to securities litigation in Israel. Three cases are currently pending. Perrigo is consulting Israeli counsel about its response to these allegations and will defend these cases vigorously. On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against the Company and five individual defendants: Our former CEO Mr. Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, and our Board members Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie Brlas alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schweiger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.). On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New Jersey Federal Court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the Schweiger action is stayed. We will defend the lawsuit vigorously when and if the stay is lifted. On March 29, 2017, plaintiff Eyal Keinan commenced an action in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa asserting securities claims against two defendants: Perrigo and its auditor Ernst & Young LLP ("EY"). The case is styled Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The action seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Perrigo shares on the Israeli exchange beginning February 6, 2014. The proposed closing date for the class is not clear from the complaint though it appears to extend into 2017. In general, the plaintiff asserts that Perrigo improperly accounted for its stream of royalty income from two drugs: Tysabri^® and Prialt. The court filings contend that the alleged improper accounting caused the audited financial results for Perrigo to be incorrect for the six month period ended December 31, 2015, and the years ended June 27, 2015 and June 28, 2014 and the other financial data released by the Company over those years and 2016 to also be inaccurate. The plaintiff maintains that the defendants are liable under Israeli securities law or, in the alternative, under U.S. securities law. The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 686.0 million NIS (approximately $192.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). The response from the defendants is not yet due. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On June 28, 2017, a plaintiff filed a complaint in Tel Aviv District Court styled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who traded in Perrigo stock on the Tel Aviv exchange during the period April 24, 2015 through May 3, 2017. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, EY (the Company’s auditor), and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The complaint alleges violations under US securities laws of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals or, in the alternative, under Israeli securities laws. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure concerning purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri^® royalty stream. The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 2.7 billion NIS (approximately $760.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On July 12, 2017, the plaintiff in the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. case filed a motion to have all three cases pending in Israel either consolidated or the other two cases dismissed so that the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff can proceed as the sole plaintiff. That motion is pending. A variety of other procedural motions are also pending at this time having to do with the timing of any response by defendants. Eltroxin During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included our subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel. One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight applications were consolidated into one application. The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. On June 16, 2015, we submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. We have filed our statement of defense to the underlying proceedings. The parties are currently engaged in mediation in an attempt to settle the matter. The underlying proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to appeal. Tysabri^® Product Liability Lawsuits We and our collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, a serious brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri^®. Each co-defendant would be responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri^® product liability claims. During calendar year 2016, one case in the U.S. was settled and two others were dismissed with prejudice. In April 2017, another case was dismissed with prejudice. While we intend to vigorously defend the remaining lawsuits, management cannot predict how these cases will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could result in substantial judgments against us. Claim Arising from the Omega Acquisition On December 16, 2016, we and Perrigo Ireland 2 brought an arbitral claim ("Claim") against Alychlo NV ("Alychlo") and Holdco I BE NV ("Holdco") (together the Sellers) in accordance with clause 26.2 of the Share Purchase Agreement dated November 6, 2014 ("SPA") and the rules of the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation ("CEPANI"). Our Claim relates to the accuracy and completeness of information about Omega provided by the Sellers as part of the sale process, the withholding of information by the Sellers during that process and breaches of Sellers’ warranties. We are seeking monetary damages from the Sellers. The Sellers served their respective responses to the Claim on February 20, 2017. In its response, Alychlo has asserted a counterclaim for monetary damages contending that we breached the duty of good faith in performing the SPA. There can be no assurance that our Claim will be successful, and Sellers deny liability for the Claim. We deny that Alychlo is entitled to any relief (including monetary relief) under the counterclaim. The arbitration proceedings are confidential as required by the SPA and the rules of the CEPANI.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

In view of the inherent difficulties of predicting the outcome of various types of legal proceedings, we cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when losses associated with the claims become probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved for those matters. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably be estimated as of July 1, 2017, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against the Company, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We currently believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously regardless of whether or not we have a loss reserve. Other than what is disclosed below, we do not expect the outcome of the litigation matters to which we are currently subject to individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Antitrust Violations

We have been named as a counterclaim co-defendant in the lawsuit Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Akorn, Inc., et al., in which Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”) alleges tortious interference and antitrust violations against us and Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Fera”). This litigation arises from our acquisition of bacitracin ophthalmic ointment from Fera in 2013. Akorn asserts claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act alleging that we and Fera conspired to monopolize, attempted to monopolize, and did unlawfully monopolize the market for sterile bacitracin ophthalmic ointment in the United States through the use of an exclusive agreement with a supplier of sterile bacitracin active pharmaceutical ingredient. The lawsuit is currently pending in the Southern District of New York. A mediation is scheduled for September 2017 and a trial is set for January 2018. Akorn seeks damages, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees. Any award of antitrust damages would be subject to trebling under antitrust laws. An estimate of any possible loss cannot be determined at this time.

We believe the claims are without merit and intend to defend them vigorously. We have preserved our indemnification rights against Fera for potential liability, defense costs, and expenses incurred as a result of this litigation.

Price-Fixing Lawsuits

We have been named as a co-defendant with other manufacturers in a number of cases alleging that we and other manufacturers of the same product engaged in anti-competitive behavior to fix or raise the prices of certain drugs starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013. The products in question are Clobetasol, Desonide, and Econazole and one complaint involving Levothyroxine, a product that we neither made nor sold. At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the liability, if any, associated with these claims.

Securities Litigation

In the United States

On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Roofers’ Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016. On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class action against the Company and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold put options on the Company shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order.

On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case and the Wilson case. The lead plaintiffs seek to represent a class of shareholders for the period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017, and identifies three subclasses - shareholders who traded during the entire period on the US exchanges; shareholders who traded during the entire period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who traded during the period while the Mylan tender offer was pending (April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015). The amended complaint names as defendants the Company and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class period related to purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri^® royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate of damages. The time for the defendants to respond to the amended complaint has not yet expired. We will defend the lawsuit vigorously.

In Israel

Because the Company’s shares are traded on the Tel Aviv exchange under a dual trading arrangement, the Company is subject to securities litigation in Israel. Three cases are currently pending. Perrigo is consulting Israeli counsel about its response to these allegations and will defend these cases vigorously.

On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against the Company and five individual defendants: Our former CEO Mr. Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, and our Board members Gary Kunkle, Jr. and Laurie Brlas alleging violations of Israeli law in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa (Schweiger et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al.). On June 15, 2016, Perrigo filed a motion to stay the case pending the outcome of the securities class action pending in the New Jersey Federal Court. The plaintiffs did not oppose the motion. The Israeli court granted the motion on the same day, and the Schweiger action is stayed. We will defend the lawsuit vigorously when and if the stay is lifted.

On March 29, 2017, plaintiff Eyal Keinan commenced an action in the District Court of Tel Aviv-Jaffa asserting securities claims against two defendants: Perrigo and its auditor Ernst & Young LLP ("EY"). The case is styled Keinan v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The action seeks certification of a class of purchasers of Perrigo shares on the Israeli exchange beginning February 6, 2014. The proposed closing date for the class is not clear from the complaint though it appears to extend into 2017. In general, the plaintiff asserts that Perrigo improperly accounted for its stream of royalty income from two drugs: Tysabri^® and Prialt. The court filings contend that the alleged improper accounting caused the audited financial results for Perrigo to be incorrect for the six month period ended December 31, 2015, and the years ended June 27, 2015 and June 28, 2014 and the other financial data released by the Company over those years and 2016 to also be inaccurate. The plaintiff maintains that the defendants are liable under Israeli securities law or, in the alternative, under U.S. securities law. The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 686.0 million NIS (approximately $192.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). The response from the defendants is not yet due. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On June 28, 2017, a plaintiff filed a complaint in Tel Aviv District Court styled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who traded in Perrigo stock on the Tel Aviv exchange during the period April 24, 2015 through May 3, 2017. The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, EY (the Company’s auditor), and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The complaint alleges violations under US securities laws of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals or, in the alternative, under Israeli securities laws. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by the Company and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure concerning purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri^® royalty stream. The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 2.7 billion NIS (approximately $760.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On July 12, 2017, the plaintiff in the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. case filed a motion to have all three cases pending in Israel either consolidated or the other two cases dismissed so that the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff can proceed as the sole plaintiff. That motion is pending. A variety of other procedural motions are also pending at this time having to do with the timing of any response by defendants.

Eltroxin

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by a third party and distributed in Israel by our subsidiary, Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents included our subsidiaries, Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various healthcare providers who provide healthcare services as part of the compulsory healthcare system in Israel.

One of the applications was dismissed and the remaining eight applications were consolidated into one application. The applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The consolidated application generally alleges that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patients' lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation.

Several hearings on whether or not to certify the consolidated application took place in December 2013 and January 2014. On May 17, 2015, the District Court certified the motion against Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. and dismissed it against the remaining respondents, including Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.

On June 16, 2015, we submitted a motion for permission to appeal the decision to certify to the Israeli Supreme Court together with a motion to stay the proceedings of the class action until the motion for permission to appeal is adjudicated. We have filed our statement of defense to the underlying proceedings. The parties are currently engaged in mediation in an attempt to settle the matter. The underlying proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to appeal.

Tysabri^® Product Liability Lawsuits

We and our collaborator Biogen are co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy, a serious brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri^®. Each co-defendant would be responsible for 50% of losses and expenses arising out of any Tysabri^® product liability claims. During calendar year 2016, one case in the U.S. was settled and two others were dismissed with prejudice. In April 2017, another case was dismissed with prejudice. While we intend to vigorously defend the remaining lawsuits, management cannot predict how these cases will be resolved. Adverse results in one or more of these lawsuits could result in substantial judgments against us.

Claim Arising from the Omega Acquisition

On December 16, 2016, we and Perrigo Ireland 2 brought an arbitral claim ("Claim") against Alychlo NV ("Alychlo") and Holdco I BE NV ("Holdco") (together the Sellers) in accordance with clause 26.2 of the Share Purchase Agreement dated November 6, 2014 ("SPA") and the rules of the Belgian Centre for Arbitration and Mediation ("CEPANI"). Our Claim relates to the accuracy and completeness of information about Omega provided by the Sellers as part of the sale process, the withholding of information by the Sellers during that process and breaches of Sellers’ warranties. We are seeking monetary damages from the Sellers. The Sellers served their respective responses to the Claim on February 20, 2017. In its response, Alychlo has asserted a counterclaim for monetary damages contending that we breached the duty of good faith in performing the SPA. There can be no assurance that our Claim will be successful, and Sellers deny liability for the Claim. We deny that Alychlo is entitled to any relief (including monetary relief) under the counterclaim. The arbitration proceedings are confidential as required by the SPA and the rules of the CEPANI.