Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	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 estimated as of June 30, 2018, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against us, 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 were named as a counterclaim co-defendant in the lawsuit Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Akorn, Inc., et al. in the Southern District of New York, in which Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”) alleged tortious interference and antitrust violations against us and Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Fera”). Trial was set for February 2018 in the Southern District of New York. This litigation arose out of our acquisition of bacitracin ophthalmic ointment from Fera in 2013. Akorn asserted 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 parties have executed a written settlement of all claims and the case has been dismissed. Price-Fixing Lawsuits We have been named as a co-defendant with certain other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions 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. Recently, the same class plaintiffs have filed new complaints naming us as a co-defendant, along with 27 other manufacturers, alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix or raise the prices of 15 generic pharmaceutical products starting in 2011. Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin cream and Nystatin ointment. We have also recently been named a co-defendant along with 35 other manufacturers in a complaint filed by three supermarket chains alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of 31 generic pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. These complaints, along with complaints filed against other companies alleging price fixing with respect to more than two dozen other drugs, have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings as part of a case captioned In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the court’s schedule staging various cases in phases, we have moved to dismiss the complaints relating to Clobetasol and Econazole. A schedule for responses to the other complaints will be determined after decisions are rendered on the pending motions to dismiss the class cases. 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 us 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 us 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 us 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 our 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 the amended complaint identifies three subclasses - shareholders who purchased shares during the period on the U.S. exchanges; shareholders who purchased shares during the period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who owned shares on the final day of the Mylan tender offer November 13, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants us 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 us and the former executives 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 and at Omega, 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. In August 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their opposition in October 2017. The defendants filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss in November 2017. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss in part and denying the motions to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O’Connor, and Marc Coucke. The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the Tysabri^® accounting issue described above and claims alleging incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company, Joe Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega acquisition and the alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On November 1, 2017, Carmignac Gestion, S.A., filed a securities lawsuit against us and three individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa, former CFO Judy Brown, and former Executive Vice President and Board member Marc Coucke). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Carmignac Gestion, S.A. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5), 14(e), and 18 against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through April 2016. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure throughout the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, our reporting about the generic prescription pharmaceutical business and its prospects, and the activities surrounding the efforts to defeat the Mylan tender offer during 2015. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case, and the court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case. On January 16, 2018, Manning & Napier Advisors, LLC filed a securities lawsuit against us and three individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa, former CFO Judy Brown, and former Executive Vice President and Board member Marc Coucke). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Manning & Napier Advisors, LLC v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 18 against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case, and the court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case. On January 26, 2018, two different plaintiff groups (the Mason Capital group and the Pentwater group) each filed a lawsuit against us and the same individuals who are defendants in the amended complaint in the securities class action case described above (Roofers’ Pension Fund case). The same law firm represents these two plaintiff groups, and the two complaints are substantially similar. These two cases are not securities class actions. One case is styled Mason Capital L.P., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The other case is styled Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and also was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Both cases are assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the class action case and the other individual cases described above (Carmignac and Manning & Napier). Each complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 14(e) (related to tender offer disclosures) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset. Many of the factual allegations in these two cases overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above and the allegations in the Carmignac case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. The parties to each case jointly requested that the court stay each case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case. The court granted the stay motion in each case. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case. We intend to defend both lawsuits vigorously. On February 13, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with Harel Insurance Investments & Financial Services, Ltd. filed a lawsuit against us and the same individuals who are defendants in the amended complaint in the securities class action case described above (Roofers’ Pension Fund case). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The new complaint is substantially similar to the amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The relevant period in the new complaint stretches from February 2014 to May 2, 2017. The complaint adds as defendants two individuals who served on our Board prior to 2016. The case is styled Harel Insurance Company, Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the class action cases and the four other individual cases described above (Carmignac, Manning & Napier, Mason Capital, and Pentwater). The Harel Insurance Company complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and related SEC Rule 10b‑5) and section 14(e) (related to tender offer disclosures) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. The complaint also asserts claims based on Israeli securities laws. In general, the plaintiffs' allegations describe events during the period from February 2014 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer events in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset from February 2014 until the withdrawal of past financial statements in April 2017. Many of the factual allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above and the allegations in the four opt out cases also described above. The plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, which was granted by the court. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case. On February 16, 2018, First Manhattan Company filed a securities lawsuit against us and three individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa, former CFO Judy Brown, and former Executive Vice President and Board member Marc Coucke). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled First Manhattan Co. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case was assigned to the same judge hearing the class action case and the five other opt out cases. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5), 14(e), and 18 against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the Manning & Napier Advisors case and the Carmignac case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Manning & Napier Advisors case. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that did not materially change the factual allegations of the original complaint. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case. The court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case. On April 20, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with TIAA-CREF filed a lawsuit against us and the same individuals who are the defendants in the Harel Insurance case complaint. This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Harel Insurance case also represents the TIAA-CREF plaintiff entities in this case, and the new complaint is substantially similar to the Harel Insurance complaint. The relevant period in the new complaint is August 14, 2014 to May 2, 2017 inclusive. The case is styled TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the class action case and the six other individual cases described above (Carmignac, Manning & Napier, Mason Capital, Pentwater, Harel Insurance, and First Manhattan). The TIAA-CREF Investment Management complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and related SEC Rule l0b-5), section 14(e) (related to tender offer disclosures) against all defendants as well as section 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, plaintiffs' allegations describe events during the period from August 2014 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer events in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset from August 2014 until the withdrawal of past financial statements in April 2017. Many of the factual allegations in this case also overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case. In Israel Because our shares are traded on the Tel Aviv exchange under a dual trading arrangement, we are potentially subject to securities litigation in Israel. Three cases were filed; two were voluntarily dismissed and one was stayed. We are consulting Israeli counsel about our response to these allegations and we intend to defend these cases vigorously. On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against us and five individual defendants: Our former CEO Mr. Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our then Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, our former Board member Gary Kunkle, Jr., and our Board member 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, we 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 was stayed. In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs dismissed their claims without prejudice because of the pendency of another class action case filed in Israel (see discussion below of the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund case). The court approved the voluntary dismissal. 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 sought certification of a class of purchasers of Perrigo shares on the Israeli exchange beginning February 6, 2014. The proposed closing date for the class was not clear from the complaint though it appeared to extend into 2017. In general, the plaintiff asserted that we improperly accounted for our stream of royalty income from two drugs: Tysabri^® and Prialt. The court filings contended 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 us over those years and 2016 to also be inaccurate. The plaintiff maintained that the defendants are liable under Israeli securities law or, in the alternative, under U.S. securities law. The plaintiff indicated an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 686.0 million NIS (approximately $192.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). In January 2018, the Keinan plaintiff announced its intention to dismiss his claims because of the pendency of another class action case filed in Israel (see discussion below of the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund case). The court granted the dismissal on February 11, 2018. 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 purchased Perrigo stock on the Tel Aviv exchange during the period April 24, 2015 through May 3, 2017 and also a claim for those that owned shares on the final day of the Mylan tender offer (November 13, 2015). 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 U.S. 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 us and our former executives 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. In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs (see description above) voluntarily dismissed their securities class action without prejudice as part of their response to the motion filed by the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff. A variety of other procedural motions were also pending having to do with the timing of any response by defendants. The court held an initial conference on November 9, 2017 to address the motion filed by the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff. Subsequently, the competing class plaintiffs held discussions and informed the court in January 2018 that they had reached an agreement among themselves such that the Education Fund case will continue and the Keinan plaintiff dismissed its case. The court approved this outcome. At the request of the parties, the court has stayed the Education Fund case pending the final adjudication of the class action case in D.N.J. (the Roofers’ Pension Fund case described above under Securities Litigation In the United States). The court approved the stay. 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 underlying proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to appeal. On November 14, 2017 the parties submitted the agreed settlement agreement to the approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the approval back to the District Court. During three hearings that took place on November 29, 2017, December 13, 2017 and January 11, 2018 the District Court opined that it would approve the settlement agreement subject to certain amendments to be proposed by the Court (which would not impact the monetary settlement reached) and set a hearing for January 30, 2018 to discuss and finalize the proposed changes. Meanwhile, the Court ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to the Attorney General for review (standard procedure); and (2) published in the written media (newspapers), to enable the class members to submit any objections or “opt-out” to the proposed settlement by February 15, 2018. On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among others, review objections received from class members who had notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the settlement. In addition, a representative of the Israeli Attorney General’s office notified the District Court that, based upon their preliminary examination of the settlement, they intend to object to the settlement in its current form. The District Court recommended that the parties continue to discuss and minimize objections to the settlement and scheduled another hearing for May 13, 2018. The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an effort to reach a decision before the appointment, an additional hearing was held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the parties to try and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and provide an update by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered the Attorney General to submit its opinion to the settlement agreement by May 30, 2018, which was extended until July 23, 2018. Tysabri^® Product Liability Lawsuits We and our collaborator Biogen have been co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri^®. In 2018, the last outstanding PML case was dismissed with prejudice. 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 a warranty in the SPA and 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.

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 estimated as of June 30, 2018, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against us, 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 were named as a counterclaim co-defendant in the lawsuit Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Akorn, Inc., et al. in the Southern District of New York, in which Akorn, Inc. (“Akorn”) alleged tortious interference and antitrust violations against us and Fera Pharmaceuticals, LLC (“Fera”). Trial was set for February 2018 in the Southern District of New York. This litigation arose out of our acquisition of bacitracin ophthalmic ointment from Fera in 2013. Akorn asserted 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 parties have executed a written settlement of all claims and the case has been dismissed.

Price-Fixing Lawsuits

We have been named as a co-defendant with certain other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions 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. Recently, the same class plaintiffs have filed new complaints naming us as a co-defendant, along with 27 other manufacturers, alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix or raise the prices of 15 generic pharmaceutical products starting in 2011. Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin cream and Nystatin ointment. We have also recently been named a co-defendant along with 35 other manufacturers in a complaint filed by three supermarket chains alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of 31 generic pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. These complaints, along with complaints filed against other companies alleging price fixing with respect to more than two dozen other drugs, have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings as part of a case captioned In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Pursuant to the court’s schedule staging various cases in phases, we have moved to dismiss the complaints relating to Clobetasol and Econazole. A schedule for responses to the other complaints will be determined after decisions are rendered on the pending motions to dismiss the class cases. 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 us 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 us 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 us 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 our 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 the amended complaint identifies three subclasses - shareholders who purchased shares during the period on the U.S. exchanges; shareholders who purchased shares during the period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who owned shares on the final day of the Mylan tender offer November 13, 2015. The amended complaint names as defendants us 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 us and the former executives 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 and at Omega, 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. In August 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs filed their opposition in October 2017. The defendants filed replies in support of the motions to dismiss in November 2017. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss in part and denying the motions to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O’Connor, and Marc Coucke. The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the Tysabri^® accounting issue described above and claims alleging incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company, Joe Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega acquisition and the alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On November 1, 2017, Carmignac Gestion, S.A., filed a securities lawsuit against us and three individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa, former CFO Judy Brown, and former Executive Vice President and Board member Marc Coucke). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Carmignac Gestion, S.A. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5), 14(e), and 18 against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through April 2016. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure throughout the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, our reporting about the generic prescription pharmaceutical business and its prospects, and the activities surrounding the efforts to defeat the Mylan tender offer during 2015. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case, and the court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case.

On January 16, 2018, Manning & Napier Advisors, LLC filed a securities lawsuit against us and three individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa, former CFO Judy Brown, and former Executive Vice President and Board member Marc Coucke). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Manning & Napier Advisors, LLC v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and 18 against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motion to dismiss filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case, and the court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case.

On January 26, 2018, two different plaintiff groups (the Mason Capital group and the Pentwater group) each filed a lawsuit against us and the same individuals who are defendants in the amended complaint in the securities class action case described above (Roofers’ Pension Fund case). The same law firm represents these two plaintiff groups, and the two complaints are substantially similar. These two cases are not securities class actions. One case is styled Mason Capital L.P., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The other case is styled Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and also was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Both cases are assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the class action case and the other individual cases described above (Carmignac and Manning & Napier). Each complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 14(e) (related to tender offer disclosures) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset. Many of the factual allegations in these two cases overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above and the allegations in the Carmignac case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. The parties to each case jointly requested that the court stay each case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case. The court granted the stay motion in each case. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case. We intend to defend both lawsuits vigorously.

On February 13, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with Harel Insurance Investments & Financial Services, Ltd. filed a lawsuit against us and the same individuals who are defendants in the amended complaint in the securities class action case described above (Roofers’ Pension Fund case). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The new complaint is substantially similar to the amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The relevant period in the new complaint stretches from February 2014 to May 2, 2017. The complaint adds as defendants two individuals who served on our Board prior to 2016. The case is styled Harel Insurance Company, Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the class action cases and the four other individual cases described above (Carmignac, Manning & Napier, Mason Capital, and Pentwater). The Harel Insurance Company complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and related SEC Rule 10b‑5) and section 14(e) (related to tender offer disclosures) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. The complaint also asserts claims based on Israeli securities laws. In general, the plaintiffs' allegations describe events during the period from February 2014 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer events in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset from February 2014 until the withdrawal of past financial statements in April 2017. Many of the factual allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above and the allegations in the four opt out cases also described above. The plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, which was granted by the court. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case.

On February 16, 2018, First Manhattan Company filed a securities lawsuit against us and three individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa, former CFO Judy Brown, and former Executive Vice President and Board member Marc Coucke). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled First Manhattan Co. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case was assigned to the same judge hearing the class action case and the five other opt out cases. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5), 14(e), and 18 against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the Manning & Napier Advisors case and the Carmignac case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Manning & Napier Advisors case. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. On April 20, 2018, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint that did not materially change the factual allegations of the original complaint. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case. The court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case.

On April 20, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with TIAA-CREF filed a lawsuit against us and the same individuals who are the defendants in the Harel Insurance case complaint. This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The law firm representing the plaintiffs in the Harel Insurance case also represents the TIAA-CREF plaintiff entities in this case, and the new complaint is substantially similar to the Harel Insurance complaint. The relevant period in the new complaint is August 14, 2014 to May 2, 2017 inclusive. The case is styled TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the class action case and the six other individual cases described above (Carmignac, Manning & Napier, Mason Capital, Pentwater, Harel Insurance, and First Manhattan). The TIAA-CREF Investment Management complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and related SEC Rule l0b-5), section 14(e) (related to tender offer disclosures) against all defendants as well as section 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, plaintiffs' allegations describe events during the period from August 2014 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer events in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® financial asset from August 2014 until the withdrawal of past financial statements in April 2017. Many of the factual allegations in this case also overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. The parties jointly requested that the court stay this case pending the outcome of a ruling on the motions to dismiss filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case. The court granted the stay motion. Because the court has issued a decision in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case, the parties to the case described in this paragraph will confer to discuss how that ruling affects this case and the scheduling issues for this case.

In Israel

Because our shares are traded on the Tel Aviv exchange under a dual trading arrangement, we are potentially subject to securities litigation in Israel. Three cases were filed; two were voluntarily dismissed and one was stayed. We are consulting Israeli counsel about our response to these allegations and we intend to defend these cases vigorously.

On May 22, 2016, shareholders filed a securities class action against us and five individual defendants: Our former CEO Mr. Papa, our former Executive Vice President and General Manager of the BCH segment Marc Coucke, our then Chief Executive Officer John Hendrickson, our former Board member Gary Kunkle, Jr., and our Board member 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, we 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 was stayed. In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs dismissed their claims without prejudice because of the pendency of another class action case filed in Israel (see discussion below of the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund case). The court approved the voluntary dismissal.

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 sought certification of a class of purchasers of Perrigo shares on the Israeli exchange beginning February 6, 2014. The proposed closing date for the class was not clear from the complaint though it appeared to extend into 2017. In general, the plaintiff asserted that we improperly accounted for our stream of royalty income from two drugs: Tysabri^® and Prialt. The court filings contended 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 us over those years and 2016 to also be inaccurate. The plaintiff maintained that the defendants are liable under Israeli securities law or, in the alternative, under U.S. securities law. The plaintiff indicated an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 686.0 million NIS (approximately $192.0 million at 1 NIS = $0.28 cent). In January 2018, the Keinan plaintiff announced its intention to dismiss his claims because of the pendency of another class action case filed in Israel (see discussion below of the Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund case). The court granted the dismissal on February 11, 2018.

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 purchased Perrigo stock on the Tel Aviv exchange during the period April 24, 2015 through May 3, 2017 and also a claim for those that owned shares on the final day of the Mylan tender offer (November 13, 2015). 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 U.S. 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 us and our former executives 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. In October 2017, the Schweiger plaintiffs (see description above) voluntarily dismissed their securities class action without prejudice as part of their response to the motion filed by the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff. A variety of other procedural motions were also pending having to do with the timing of any response by defendants. The court held an initial conference on November 9, 2017 to address the motion filed by the Israel Elec. Corp. Educ. Fund plaintiff. Subsequently, the competing class plaintiffs held discussions and informed the court in January 2018 that they had reached an agreement among themselves such that the Education Fund case will continue and the Keinan plaintiff dismissed its case. The court approved this outcome. At the request of the parties, the court has stayed the Education Fund case pending the final adjudication of the class action case in D.N.J. (the Roofers’ Pension Fund case described above under Securities Litigation In the United States). The court approved the stay.

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 underlying proceedings have been stayed pending the outcome of the mediation process and, if necessary, a decision on the motion to appeal.

On November 14, 2017 the parties submitted the agreed settlement agreement to the approval of the Supreme Court, which referred the approval back to the District Court. During three hearings that took place on November 29, 2017, December 13, 2017 and January 11, 2018 the District Court opined that it would approve the settlement agreement subject to certain amendments to be proposed by the Court (which would not impact the monetary settlement reached) and set a hearing for January 30, 2018 to discuss and finalize the proposed changes. Meanwhile, the Court ordered the settlement to be (1) provided to the Attorney General for review (standard procedure); and (2) published in the written media (newspapers), to enable the class members to submit any objections or “opt-out” to the proposed settlement by February 15, 2018.

On February 21, 2018, the District Court held a hearing to, among others, review objections received from class members who had notified the District Court of their desire to opt out of the settlement. In addition, a representative of the Israeli Attorney General’s office notified the District Court that, based upon their preliminary examination of the settlement, they intend to object to the settlement in its current form. The District Court recommended that the parties continue to discuss and minimize objections to the settlement and scheduled another hearing for May 13, 2018.

The District Court Justice was appointed as a Supreme Court Justice and ordered to move the case to a different panel. In an effort to reach a decision before the appointment, an additional hearing was held on March 12, 2018 in which the court urged the parties to try and exhaust their negotiations to the fullest and provide an update by May 13, 2018. In addition, the Court ordered the Attorney General to submit its opinion to the settlement agreement by May 30, 2018, which was extended until July 23, 2018.

Tysabri^® Product Liability Lawsuits

We and our collaborator Biogen have been co-defendants in product liability lawsuits arising out of the occurrence of Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy ("PML"), a serious brain infection, and serious adverse events, including deaths, which occurred in patients taking Tysabri^®. In 2018, the last outstanding PML case was dismissed with prejudice.

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 a warranty in the SPA and 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.