Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2019
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 March 30, 2019, 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. 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 and/or allocate customers starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013. The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a) direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole. The same class plaintiffs have filed 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 prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2011. Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin cream and Nystatin ointment. We have also 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 prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. The only allegations specific to us relate to Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. On August 3, 2018, a large managed care organization filed a complaint against us alleging price-fixing and customer allocation concerning 17 different products among 27 manufacturers including Perrigo. The only allegations specific to us concern Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin cream/ointment. Most recently, on January 16, 2019, a similar suit was brought by a health insurance carrier in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of 30 products among 30 defendants. The only allegations specific to us concern Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin cream/ointment. Certain complaints listed above were amended in December 2017, January 2018, and April 2019. All of the above complaints have been consolidated for pretrial proceedings, along with complaints filed against other companies alleging price fixing with respect to more than two dozen other drugs, 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 moved to dismiss the complaints relating to Clobetasol and Econazole. The court issued a decision denying the motions in part in October 2018 and issued a second decision in February 2019 dismissing various state law claims, but allowing other state law claims to proceed. We filed answers to the Clobetasol complaints on December 31, 2018. We filed answers to the Desonide and Econazole complaints on March 15, 2019. Motions to dismiss certain other complaints listed above were filed on February 21, 2019. Plaintiffs’ oppositions are due on May 2, 2019. Deposition discovery is currently stayed for all cases, but documentary discovery is proceeding. At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the liability, if any, associated with these claims. Securities Litigation In the United States (cases related to events in 2015-2017) 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 the 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. In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent three classes of shareholders - shareholders who purchased shares during the period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on the U.S. exchanges; shareholders who purchased shares during the same period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their shares.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. During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the plaintiffs opposed. 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 plc, 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. The defendants who remain in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of litigation has begun. 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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above) the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. Because this plaintiff made some factual allegations that were not asserted in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. 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^®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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above) the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. Because this plaintiff made some factual allegations that were not asserted in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. 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 plaintiffs' allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend 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^® 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 plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to these cases conferred about how these cases should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in these cases. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend the 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^® 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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the litigation has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. 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^® 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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. Because this plaintiff made some factual allegations that were not asserted in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. 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^® 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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above) the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the litigation has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On October 29, 2018, Nationwide Mutual Funds and Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust (both on behalf of several fund series) filed a securities lawsuit against us and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Nationwide Mutual Funds, et al. 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 seven other opt out cases. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5), and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs' allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, and alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the First Manhattan case, the Manning & Napier Advisors case, and the Carmignac case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Manning & Napier case. The complaint does not include factual allegations that the Court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case also described above. Many of the allegations in this case also 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. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On November 15, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with Westchester Capital Funds filed a lawsuit against us, our former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and our former CFO Judy Brown. This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The same law firm that represents the plaintiffs in the Mason Capital L.P. case and the Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. case (described above) represents the affiliates of the Westchester Funds in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations of the complaints in the Mason Capital and in the Pentwater cases described above. The case is styled WCM Alternative: Event-Drive Fund, et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al., and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The WCM case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofer’s Fund class action case and the eight other individual cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and SEC Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 as well us up through May 3, 2017. Plaintiffs identify disclosures concerning the 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^® asset. Many of the factual allegations in this complaint 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. In view of the court’s July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On November 15, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with Hudson Bay Capital Management LP filed a lawsuit against us, our former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and our former CFO Judy Brown. This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The same law firm that represents the plaintiffs in the Mason Capital L.P., the Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., and the WCM cases (described above) represents the affiliates of Hudson Bay Capital Management in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations of the complaints in the Mason Capital, in the Pentwater, and in the WCM cases described above. The case is styled Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al., and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Hudson Bay Fund case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofer’s Fund class action case and the nine other individual cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 14(e) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning the 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^® asset. Many of the factual allegations in this complaint 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. In view of the court’s July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On January 31, 2019, Schwab Capital Trust and a variety of other Schwab entities filed a securities lawsuit against us and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Schwab Capital Trust, et al. 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 ten other opt out cases. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5), and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, and alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the Carmignac case, the Manning & Napier case, the First Manhattan case, and the Nationwide Mutual Funds case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Nationwide Mutual Funds case. The complaint does not include factual allegations that the court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case also described above. Many of the allegations in this case also overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. The parties have agreed that the defendants will not have to respond to the complaint until 45 days after the court decides the motion to dismiss pending in the Carmignac, Manning & Napier, First Manhattan, and Nationwide Mutual cases described above. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On February 6, 2019, OZ Master Fund, Ltd. and a related entity filed a securities lawsuit against us and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled OZ Master Fund, Ltd., et al. 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 eleven other opt out cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and SEC Rule 10b‑5), and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the 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^® asset. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. The parties have submitted an agreed stipulation to the court regarding a proposed schedule and are awaiting the court’s approval. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On February 14, 2019, Highfields Capital I LP and related entities filed a securities lawsuit against the Company and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Highfields Capital I LP, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 14(e) and 18 against all defendants, as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. The complaint also asserts Massachusetts state law claims under Massachusetts Unfair Business Methods Law (chapter 93A § 11), and Massachusetts common law claims of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by the Company during that period, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® asset. Some of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above and with allegations in one or more of the opt out cases described above. Plaintiffs do not provide a clear calculation of how they estimated damages and seek treble damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. On May 7, 2019, defendants filed a motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey so that the proceedings in this case can be coordinated with the other cases (discussed above) pending in that court. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On February 22, 2019, Aberdeen Canada Funds -- Global Equity Funds (and 30 other entities, some unrelated to Aberdeen) filed a securities lawsuit against the Company and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Aberdeen Canada Funds -- Global Equity Fund, et al. 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 twelve other opt-out cases pending in that Court. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by the Company during that period, and alleged undisclosed pricing pressure for generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the Carmignac case, the Manning & Napier case, the First Manhattan case, the Nationwide Mutual Funds case, and the Schwab Capital Trust case described above, and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Nationwide Mutual Funds case. The complaint does not include factual allegations that the Court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case also described above. Many of the allegations in this case also overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above. The parties have agreed that the defendants will not have to respond to the complaint until 45 days after the court decides the motion to dismiss pending the Carmignac, Manning & Napier, First Manhattan, and Nationwide Mutual Funds cases described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. In Israel (cases related to events in 2015-2017) 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; one was voluntarily dismissed in each of 2017 and 2018 and one was stayed in 2018. We are consulting Israeli counsel about our response to these allegations and we intend to defend this case 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 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, Ernst & Young LLP ("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 cents). After the other two cases filed in Israel were voluntarily dismissed, the plaintiff in this case agreed to stay this case pending the outcome of the Roofers’ Pension Fund case in the U.S. (described above). The Israeli court approved the stay, and this case is now stayed. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. In the United States (cases related to Irish Tax events) On January 3, 2019, a shareholder filed a complaint against the Company, our CEO Murray Kessler, and our CFO Ronald Winowiecki in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Masih v. Perrigo Company, et al.). Plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders for the period November 8, 2018 through December 20, 2018, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general the allegations contend that the Company, in its Form 10‑Q filed November 8, 2018, disclosed information about an October 31, 2018 audit finding letter received from Irish tax authorities but failed to disclose enough material information about that letter until December 20, 2018, when we filed a current report on Form 8‑K about Irish tax matters. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. The Court has selected lead plaintiffs and changed the name of the case to In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 12, 2019, which names the same defendants, asserts the same class period, and invokes the same Exchange Act sections. The amended complaint generally repeats the allegations of the original complaint with a few additional details and adds that the defendants also failed to timely disclose the Irish tax authorities’ Notice of Amended Assessment received on November 29, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 3, 2019. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. In Israel (cases related to Irish Tax events) On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the Company, our CEO Murray Kessler, and our CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.). The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York federal court. This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. We filed a request for a stay, the plaintiff agreed in part, and the court approved a stay and required the parties to update the court about the U.S. proceedings by September 1, 2019. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. 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 an 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 ("AG") 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 other things, 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 AG'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 AG to submit its opinion to the settlement agreement by May 30, 2018, which was extended until July 23, 2018. On August 2, 2018, the AG submitted its objection to the settlement, noting, among other things, that it did not provide compensation for harm to autonomy. On August 12, 2018, we submitted our response to the Attorney General's objection together with an amended settlement which incorporated the court's comments. Following the submission of the amended settlement agreement on August 23, 2018, the District Court rendered a decision that it will be willing to approve the amended settlement agreement providing that a few additional amendments will be made. Both parties agreed to carry out the requested amendments. On September 13, 2018, the AG filed a request to file a response to the amended settlement agreement and asked for an extension to file a response until November 11, 2018, which was granted by the court. On November 11, 2018 the AG asked and was granted another ten days extension to file a response. On November 21, 2018 the AG filed its response in which he mainly repeated his previous objection to the settlement claiming that the settlement amount does not provide a suitable compensation for harm to the autonomy and that the mechanism payment is complex and will deter patients from receiving appropriate compensation for pain and suffering. The AG repeated his opinion that each member of the group should be compensated for harm to the autonomy while claiming a minimum amount of 250 NIS should be provided for each patient. In addition, the AG detailed an alternative mechanism and list of categories that he asserts would be a better and less complex solution to provide the compensation amount. On November 29, 2018, the court approved the Eltroxin settlement agreement. In a lengthy decision, the court detailed the various aspects of the settlement as well as the objections submitted to the settlement, including the main objection submitted by the AG. The court added a number of comments ordering the parties to make minor changes to the agreement, mainly concerning the operation of the mechanism, however none of the agreement foundations are affected by these changes. The court found that the settlement is "worthwhile, reasonable and fair" and ordered its publication and approval. 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. Alychlo has recently filed papers seeking permission to introduce an additional counterclaim theory of recovery related to the Irish tax issue recently disclosed by the Company such that if the position of the Irish tax authorities prevails, Alychlo would have a further basis for its counterclaim against Perrigo. The proposed additional counterclaim theory does not appear to increase any damages sought. The Tribunal has not decided whether to grant Alychlo permission to introduce the additional counterclaim. There can be no assurance that our Claim will be successful, and the Sellers deny liability for the Claim. We deny that Alychlo is entitled to any relief (including monetary relief) under either the existing counterclaim or the proposed additional counterclaim theory. The arbitration proceedings are confidential as required by the SPA and the rules of the CEPANI. Other Matters Our Board of Directors received a shareholder demand letter dated October 30, 2018 relating to the allegations in the securities cases and price fixing lawsuits described above. The letter demands that the Board of Directors initiate an action against certain current and former executives and Board members to recover damages allegedly caused to the Company. In response, the Company reminded the shareholder that any derivative claim can only proceed in accordance with Irish law, the law that governs the Company’s internal affairs. The shareholder has responded that he intends to file a lawsuit asserting derivative claims but has not yet filed a lawsuit.

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 March 30, 2019, 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.

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 and/or allocate customers starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013. The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a) direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole. The same class plaintiffs have filed 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 prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2011. Perrigo manufactures only two of the products at issue, Nystatin cream and Nystatin ointment.

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 the 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. In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent three classes of shareholders - shareholders who purchased shares during the period April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on the U.S. exchanges; shareholders who purchased shares during the same period on the Tel Aviv exchange; and shareholders who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their shares.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. During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the plaintiffs opposed. 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 plc, 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

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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above) the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. Because this plaintiff made some factual allegations that were not asserted in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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^®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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above) the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. Because this plaintiff made some factual allegations that were not asserted in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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 plaintiffs' allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend 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^® 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 plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to these cases conferred about how these cases should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in these cases. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend the 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^® 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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the litigation has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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^® 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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. Because this plaintiff made some factual allegations that were not asserted in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case and the remaining defendants filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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^® 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. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above) the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to this case and the remaining defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the litigation has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On October 29, 2018, Nationwide Mutual Funds and Nationwide Variable Insurance Trust (both on behalf of several fund series) filed a securities lawsuit against us and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Nationwide Mutual Funds, et al. 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 seven other opt out cases. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5), and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs' allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, and alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the First Manhattan case, the Manning & Napier Advisors case, and the Carmignac case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Manning & Napier case. The complaint does not include factual allegations that the Court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case also described above. Many of the allegations in this case also 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. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed a motion to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in this case. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On November 15, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with Westchester Capital Funds filed a lawsuit against us, our former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and our former CFO Judy Brown. This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The same law firm that represents the plaintiffs in the Mason Capital L.P. case and the Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd. case (described above) represents the affiliates of the Westchester Funds in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations of the complaints in the Mason Capital and in the Pentwater cases described above. The case is styled WCM Alternative: Event-Drive Fund, et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al., and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The WCM case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofer’s Fund class action case and the eight other individual cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and SEC Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 as well us up through May 3, 2017. Plaintiffs identify disclosures concerning the 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^® asset. Many of the factual allegations in this complaint 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. In view of the court’s July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On November 15, 2018, a group of plaintiff investors affiliated with Hudson Bay Capital Management LP filed a lawsuit against us, our former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and our former CFO Judy Brown. This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The same law firm that represents the plaintiffs in the Mason Capital L.P., the Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., and the WCM cases (described above) represents the affiliates of Hudson Bay Capital Management in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations of the complaints in the Mason Capital, in the Pentwater, and in the WCM cases described above. The case is styled Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al., and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Hudson Bay Fund case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofer’s Fund class action case and the nine other individual cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 14(e) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning the 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^® asset. Many of the factual allegations in this complaint 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. In view of the court’s July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case (described above), the parties to this case conferred about how this case should proceed. The parties agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in this case. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On January 31, 2019, Schwab Capital Trust and a variety of other Schwab entities filed a securities lawsuit against us and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Schwab Capital Trust, et al. 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 ten other opt out cases. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5), and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, and alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the Carmignac case, the Manning & Napier case, the First Manhattan case, and the Nationwide Mutual Funds case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Nationwide Mutual Funds case. The complaint does not include factual allegations that the court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case also described above. Many of the allegations in this case also overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. The parties have agreed that the defendants will not have to respond to the complaint until 45 days after the court decides the motion to dismiss pending in the Carmignac, Manning & Napier, First Manhattan, and Nationwide Mutual cases described above. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On February 6, 2019, OZ Master Fund, Ltd. and a related entity filed a securities lawsuit against us and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled OZ Master Fund, Ltd., et al. 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 eleven other opt out cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act

sections 10(b) (and SEC Rule 10b‑5), and 14(e) against all defendants as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the 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^® asset. Many of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. The parties have submitted an agreed stipulation to the court regarding a proposed schedule and are awaiting the court’s approval. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On February 14, 2019, Highfields Capital I LP and related entities filed a securities lawsuit against the Company and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Highfields Capital I LP, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al., and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 14(e) and 18 against all defendants, as well as 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. The complaint also asserts Massachusetts state law claims under Massachusetts Unfair Business Methods Law (chapter 93A § 11), and Massachusetts common law claims of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by the Company during that period, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® asset. Some of the allegations in this case overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above and with allegations in one or more of the opt out cases described above. Plaintiffs do not provide a clear calculation of how they estimated damages and seek treble damages, punitive damages, and attorney's fees. On May 7, 2019, defendants filed a motion to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey so that the proceedings in this case can be coordinated with the other cases (discussed above) pending in that court. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On February 22, 2019, Aberdeen Canada Funds -- Global Equity Funds (and 30 other entities, some unrelated to Aberdeen) filed a securities lawsuit against the Company and two individuals (former Chairman and CEO Joseph Papa and former CFO Judy Brown). This lawsuit is not a securities class action. The case is styled Aberdeen Canada Funds -- Global Equity Fund, et al. 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 twelve other opt-out cases pending in that Court. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiffs’ allegations focus on events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017 (including the period of the Mylan tender offer). Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure at various times during the period concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by the Company during that period, and alleged undisclosed pricing pressure for generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. This lawsuit was filed by the same law firm that filed the Carmignac case, the Manning & Napier case, the First Manhattan case, the Nationwide Mutual Funds case, and the Schwab Capital Trust case described above, and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Nationwide Mutual Funds case. The complaint does not include factual allegations that the Court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case also described above. Many of the allegations in this case also overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofer’s Pension Fund case described above. The parties have agreed that the defendants will not have to respond to the complaint until 45 days after the court decides the motion to dismiss pending the Carmignac, Manning & Napier, First Manhattan, and Nationwide Mutual Funds cases described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. 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 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, Ernst & Young LLP ("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 cents). After the other two cases filed in Israel were voluntarily dismissed, the plaintiff in this case agreed to stay this case pending the outcome of the Roofers’ Pension Fund case in the U.S. (described above). The Israeli court approved the stay, and this case is now stayed. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On January 3, 2019, a shareholder filed a complaint against the Company, our CEO Murray Kessler, and our CFO Ronald Winowiecki in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Masih v. Perrigo Company, et al.). Plaintiff purports to represent a class of shareholders for the period November 8, 2018 through December 20, 2018, inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person liability against the individual defendants. In general the allegations contend that the Company, in its Form 10‑Q filed November 8, 2018, disclosed information about an October 31, 2018 audit finding letter received from Irish tax authorities but failed to disclose enough material information about that letter until December 20, 2018, when we filed a current report on Form 8‑K about Irish tax matters. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. The Court has selected lead plaintiffs and changed the name of the case to In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 12, 2019, which names the same defendants, asserts the same class period, and invokes the same Exchange Act sections. The amended complaint generally repeats the allegations of the original complaint with a few additional details and adds that the defendants also failed to timely disclose the Irish tax authorities’ Notice of Amended Assessment received on November 29, 2018. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 3, 2019. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the Company, our CEO Murray Kessler, and our CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.). The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York federal court. This case alleges that persons who invested through the Tel Aviv stock exchange can assert claims under Israeli securities law that will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. We filed a request for a stay, the plaintiff agreed in part, and the court approved a stay and required the parties to update the court about the U.S. proceedings by September 1, 2019. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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.

On November 14, 2017 the parties submitted an 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 ("AG") 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 other things, 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 AG'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.

On August 2, 2018, the AG submitted its objection to the settlement, noting, among other things, that it did not provide compensation for harm to autonomy. On August 12, 2018, we submitted our response to the Attorney General's objection together with an amended settlement which incorporated the court's comments. Following the submission of the amended settlement agreement on August 23, 2018, the District Court rendered a decision that it will be willing to approve the amended settlement agreement providing that a few additional amendments will be made. Both parties agreed to carry out the requested amendments. On September 13, 2018, the AG filed a request to file a response to the amended settlement agreement and asked for an extension to file a response until

November 11, 2018, which was granted by the court. On November 11, 2018 the AG asked and was granted another ten days extension to file a response. On November 21, 2018 the AG filed its response in which he mainly repeated his previous objection to the settlement claiming that the settlement amount does not provide a suitable compensation for harm to the autonomy and that the mechanism payment is complex and will deter patients from receiving appropriate compensation for pain and suffering. The AG repeated his opinion that each member of the group should be compensated for harm to the autonomy while claiming a minimum amount of 250 NIS should be provided for each patient. In addition, the AG detailed an alternative mechanism and list of categories that he asserts would be a better and less complex solution to provide the compensation amount.

On November 29, 2018, the court approved the Eltroxin settlement agreement. In a lengthy decision, the court detailed the various aspects of the settlement as well as the objections submitted to the settlement, including the main objection submitted by the AG. The court added a number of comments ordering the parties to make minor changes to the agreement, mainly concerning the operation of the mechanism, however none of the agreement foundations are affected by these changes. The court found that the settlement is "worthwhile, reasonable and fair" and ordered its publication and approval.

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. Alychlo has recently filed papers seeking permission to introduce an additional counterclaim theory of recovery related to the Irish tax issue recently disclosed by the Company such that if the position of the Irish tax authorities prevails, Alychlo would have a further basis for its counterclaim against Perrigo. The proposed additional counterclaim theory does not appear to increase any damages sought. The Tribunal has not decided whether to grant Alychlo permission to introduce the additional counterclaim. There can be no assurance that our Claim will be successful, and the Sellers deny liability for the Claim. We deny that Alychlo is entitled to any relief (including monetary relief) under either the existing counterclaim or the proposed additional counterclaim theory.