Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Mar. 28, 2020

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 28, 2020, 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 are a defendant in several cases in the generic pricing multidistrict litigation MDL No. 2724 (United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania). This multidistrict litigation, which has many cases that do not include Perrigo, includes class action and opt-out cases for federal and state antitrust claims.

We have been named as a co-defendant with certain other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions alleging single-product conspiracies 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. 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 gel complaints on December 31, 2018. We filed answers to the Desonide and Econazole complaints on March 15, 2019. The cases are proceeding in document discovery.

The same three putative classes have each 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. Motions to dismiss certain single-product and overarching complaints listed above were filed on February 21, 2019. Plaintiffs’ oppositions were due on May 2, 2019 and defendants’ replies were filed on June 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the Defendants’ joint motions to dismiss certain overarching conspiracy allegations. The cases are proceeding in document discovery.

In December 2019, both the end payor and indirect reseller class plaintiffs filed new overarching complaints against us, dozens of other manufacturers of generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals. The Direct Purchaser plaintiffs filed a new overarching conspiracy complaint in February 2020. The complaints also allege conspiracies relating to the sale of various new products, the majority of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in connection with its sales of Immiquimod cream, Desonide cream and ointment, and Hydrocortisone Valerate cream. The end payor and direct purchaser

complaints allege that Perrigo conspired in connection with its sale of the following drugs: Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Clindamycin Phosphate, Fenofibrate, Halobetasol Proprionate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Permethrin, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaints, and responses are currently stayed.

On March 11, 2020, the indirect reseller plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the December 2019 complaint. The proposed amended complaint adds additional products and allegations to the original complaint. Perrigo is discussed in connection with allegations concerning an additional drug, Betamethasone Dipropionate lotion. On April 24, 2020, defendants entered into a joint stipulation with the indirect reseller plaintiffs not to oppose the motion to amend and to stay responses to the amended complaint. The stipulation and proposed order is pending Court approval.

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, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment. Perrigo moved to dismiss this complaint on February 21, 2019. The motion was denied on August 15, 2019. The case is proceeding in document discovery. On February 3, 2020, the plaintiffs requested leave to file a second amended complaint. The proposed amended complaint adds dozens of additional products and allegations to the original complaint. Perrigo is discussed in connection with allegations concerning an additional drug, Fenofibrate. Defendants opposed the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and a sur-reply in support of defendants’ opposition is due to be filed on March 30, 2020.

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. Perrigo moved to dismiss this complaint on February 21, 2019. The motion was denied on August 15, 2019. The case is proceeding in document discovery.

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 gel, Desonide, Econazole, Nystatin cream, and Nystatin ointment. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed.

On July 18, 2019, 87 health plans filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons in Pennsylvania state court to commence an action against 53 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and 17 individuals, alleging antitrust violations concerning generic pharmaceutical drugs. While Perrigo was named as a defendant, no complaint has been filed. Proceedings in the case, including the filing of a complaint, have been stayed at the request of the plaintiffs.

On December 11, 2019, a health care service company filed a complaint against us and 38 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other multi-district litigation ("MDL") complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin cream/ointment. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed.

On December 16, 2019, a Medicare Advantage claims recovery company filed a complaint against us and 39 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin cream/ointment. The complaint was originally filed in the District of Connecticut but will be consolidated

into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet had the opportunity to respond to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed.

On December 23, 2019, several counties in New York filed an amended complaint against us and 28 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, and Econazole. The complaint was originally filed in New York State court but was removed to federal court and will likely be consolidated into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed.

On December 27, 2019, a healthcare management organization filed a complaint against us and 25 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, and Econazole. The complaint was filed originally in the Northern District of California but will be consolidated into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed.

On March 1, 2020, Harris County of Texas, filed a complaint against Perrigo New York, Inc. and 29 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, and Econazole. The complaint was originally filed in New York State court but will be transferred to the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed.

At this stage, we cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the liability if any, associated with the claims listed above.

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, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, 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 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs’ motion and certified three classes for the case: (i) all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby; (ii) all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv exchange and were damaged thereby; and (iii) all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (whether or not a person tendered shares in response to the Mylan tender offer)(the "tender offer class"). Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Third Circuit challenging the certification of the tender offer class, and the class plaintiffs have filed an opposition. On April 30, 2020, the Third Circuit denied leave to appeal.

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. On July 31, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability. The case is now in the discovery phase. 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 did 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. On July 31, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability. On January 3, 2020, the plaintiff filed a consented notice of voluntary dismissal dismissing its section 18 claims with prejudice and dismissing its 10(b) and 20(a) claims without prejudice. The Court approved the dismissal on January 7, 2020, and this case has now ended.

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). 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 three other individual cases described above (Carmignac, 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 four 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 Carmignac case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the Carmignac 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. On July 31, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability. The case is now in the discovery phase. 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, 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 six 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 and the Carmignac case described above and generally makes the same factual assertions as in the First Manhattan case. The complaint does not include factual allegations that the Court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofers' 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. On July 31, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability. The case is now in the discovery phase. 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 Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the seven 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 Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the eight 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 nine 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 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 Roofers' 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 parties agreed that the defendants would not respond to the complaint until 45 days after the court decided the motion to dismiss then-pending in the Carmignac, First Manhattan, and Nationwide Mutual cases described above. On July 31, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part that motion to dismiss. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability. This case has now also moved into the discovery phase. 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. Recently the names of the plaintiff entities were changed, and the case is now styled Sculptor Master Fund, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The case was assigned to the same judge hearing the class action case and the ten 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 Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of damages. The parties agreed that the court's rulings in July 2018 in the Roofers' Pension Fund case (discussed above) and in July 2019 in the Carmignac and other cases (discussed above) will apply to this case as well. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability. The parties agreed to a proposed schedule, which the court approved in July 2019, by which the plaintiffs are participating in the discovery proceedings in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above and the various individual cases also described above. 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 initially 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 Roofers' 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. In March 2020, the District of Massachusetts court granted defendants’ motion and transferred this case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey so that the activities in this case can proceed in tandem with the eleven other cases in the District of New Jersey listed above. After the transfer, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss their Massachusetts state law claims and proceed on their federal law claims. Plaintiffs will participate in the discovery activities of the other cases described above. Meanwhile, the defendants will move to dismiss certain factual allegations that plaintiffs were unwilling to dismiss. 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 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 Roofers' 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. On July 31, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss in the Carmignac and related cases, which ruling also applies to this case. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) filed answers denying liability. This case has now moved into the discovery phase. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On December 18, 2019, Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd., and three other funds from the same group of companies 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 Equities Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., the WCM, and the Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd. cases represents the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations in those four earlier cases. The case is styled Discovery Global Citizens 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 Discovery Global case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the thirteen 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 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) will file answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the case has begun. We intend to defend this case vigorously.

On December 20, 2019, York Capital Management, L.P. and six other related funds from the same group of companies 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 Equities Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., the WCM, the Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd., and the Discovery Global cases represents the plaintiffs in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations in those four earlier cases. The case is styled York Capital Management, L.P., et al. v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al., and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The York Capital case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the fourteen other individual cases in 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 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) will file answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend this case vigorously.

On February 12, 2020, Burlington Loan Management DAC 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 Equities Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., the WCM, the Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd., the Discovery Global, and the York Capital cases represents the plaintiff in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations in those six earlier cases. The case is styled Burlington Loan Management DAC v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al., and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Burlington Loan case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the fifteen other individual cases in 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 plaintiff’s allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri^® 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 plaintiff does 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) will file answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the cases has begun. We intend to defend this case vigorously.

On March 2, 2020, Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited 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 Equities Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., the WCM, the Hudson Bay Master Fund, Ltd., the Discovery Global, and the York Capital cases represents the plaintiff in this lawsuit. The factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations in those six earlier cases. The case is styled Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al., and is filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Universities Superannuation case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the sixteen other individual cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) and 14(e) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants. In general, the plaintiff’s allegations describe events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiff contends that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 as well as at other times in 2016 and point to disclosures at various times during these periods 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 plaintiff does 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) will file answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of the case has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On March 5, 2020, Principal Funds, Inc. (and other 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 Principal Funds, Inc., 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 Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the seventeen 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 First Manhattan case, the Nationwide Mutual Funds case, the Schwab Capital Trust case, and the Aberdeen 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 Roofers' 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 plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. On July 31, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss in the Carmignac and related cases, which ruling also applies to this case. The defendants (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) are filing answers denying liability. This case has now moved into the discovery phase. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On March 31, 2020, Kuwait Investment Authority (and another related entity) 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 Kuwait Investment Authority, 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 Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the eighteen 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 First Manhattan case, the Nationwide Mutual Funds case, the Schwab Capital Trust case, the Aberdeen Funds case, and the Principal 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 Roofers' 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 plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. The parties are negotiating a schedule concerning the defendants’ answers. It is anticipated that the plaintiffs will participate in the discovery activities related to all the securities cases listed above. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

On April 21, 2020, BlackRock Global Allocation Fund and multiple affiliated entities 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 factual allegations of the complaint are substantially similar to the factual allegations in many of the cases described above. The case is styled BlackRock Global Allocation 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 BlackRock Global case is assigned to the same federal judge that is hearing the Roofers' Pension Fund class action case and the nineteen other individual cases described above. The complaint asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and SEC Rule 10b-5) and 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 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, alleged lower performance in the generic prescription drug business during 2015 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 and the opt out cases described above. The plaintiffs do not provide an estimate of damages. The parties have just begun discussions about the schedule for how this case should proceed.  We intend to defend this case 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 (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 former 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 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 named the same defendants, asserted the same class period, and invoked the same Exchange Act sections. The amended complaint generally repeated 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. On May 31, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which asserted a longer class period

(March 1, 2018 through December 20, 2018) and added one additional individual defendant, former CEO Uwe Roehrhoff. In general, the second amended complaint contends that Perrigo’s disclosures about the Irish tax audit were inadequate beginning with Perrigo’s 10-K filed on March 1, 2018 through December 20, 2018 and repeats many of the allegations of the April 2019 amended complaint. The second amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and SEC Rule 10b-5) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person liability against the three individual defendants. All defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss. On January 23, 2020, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, dismissing Mr. Roehrhoff as a defendant and dismissing allegations of inadequate disclosures related to the audit by Irish Revenue during the period March 2018 through October 30, 2018. The court permitted the plaintiffs to pursue their claims against us, Mr. Kessler, and Mr. Winowiecki related to disclosures after Perrigo received the October 30, 2018 audit findings letter and later events through December 20, 2018. The Defendants filed answers on February 13, 2020 denying liability, and the Court held a scheduling conference on February 28, 2020, and issued a scheduling order on March 3, 2020. Discovery on the remaining issues is underway. 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 former 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. In 2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United States. Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February 2020, and the court granted the stay indefinitely. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

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 (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 subsequently filed papers seeking permission to introduce an additional counterclaim theory of recovery related to the Irish tax issues disclosed by the Company such that if the position of the Irish tax authorities prevails, Alychlo would have further basis for its counterclaim against Perrigo. In June 2019, the Tribunal denied permission for Alychlo to introduce the additional counterclaim and dismissed certain aspects of the original Alychlo counterclaim. There can be no assurance that our Claim will be successful, and the Sellers deny liability for the Claim. To the extent that aspects of Alychlo’s counterclaim survived the Tribunal’s ruling in June 2019, we deny that Alychlo is entitled to any relief (including monetary relief). 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 responded that he would file a lawsuit asserting derivative claims.

On October 2, 2019, the shareholder filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey styled Krueger derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Perrigo Company plc v. Alford, et al. The case was assigned to the same judge who is handling the Roofers' Pension Fund securities class action and related opt

out cases described above. In addition to the Company, the lawsuit names as defendants current Board members Alford, Classon, Karaboutis, Kindler, O’Connor, Parker, and Samuels, current CEO Kessler, former Board members Smith, Brlas, Cohen, Fouse, Hoffing, Jandernoa, Kunkle, and Morris, former CEO Hendrickson, former CEO Papa, former CFO Brown, former CFO Winowiecki, and former Executive Vice Presidents Boothe and Coucke. The lawsuit seeks to authorize the shareholder to pursue claims on behalf of the Company against all the individual defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties and for unjust enrichment, and against the current director defendants, former director Mr. Smith, and current CEO Mr. Kessler for violations of Exchange Act §§ 14(a) (proxy statement disclosures) and 29(b) (disgorgement as a result of alleged violations of § 14(a)). The complaint alleges that the following events indicate that the individuals in their respective capacities failed to exercise appropriate control over the management of the Company and made inadequate public disclosures concerning the integration of Omega after acquisition; the Company’s past and prospective organic growth; the defense against the Mylan 2015 tender offer; the alleged collusive pricing activities regarding generic prescription products; the accounting by the Company for the Tysabri® royalty stream; the 2018 Irish tax audit including potential liabilities for Irish taxes; and the April 2019 assertion of tax liabilities by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (many of these factual events also underlie the securities cases discussed earlier in this Note 14). All defendants have filed motions to dismiss asserting various reasons to dismiss. Plaintiff filed his opposition in March 2020. Defendants’ replies in support of dismissal are due in late June 2020. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Talcum Powder

The Company has been named, together with other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in state courts in Florida, Missouri and Illinois and in the Southern District of Mississippi alleging that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the presence of asbestos. The Company has been named in 27 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has accepted a tender for a portion of the defense costs and liability from a retailer for one additional matter. The Company has not manufactured or sold talcum powder products since 1999. The Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend these lawsuits.   

Ranitidine

After regulatory bodies announced worldwide that ranitidine may potentially contain N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a known environmental contaminant, the Company promptly began testing its externally-sourced ranitidine API and ranitidine-based products. On October 8, 2019, the Company halted shipments of the product based upon preliminary results and on October 23, 2019, the Company made the decision to conduct a voluntary retail market withdrawal. As of April 29, 2020, the Company has been named in six product liability lawsuits in various federal courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancers or are placed at higher risk of developing cancer as a result of ingesting products containing ranitidine. The Company is named in these lawsuits with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine products and/or retailers. Some of the Company’s retailer customers are seeking indemnity from the Company for a portion of their defense costs and liability relating to these cases.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some instances seek applicable remedies under state consumer protection laws. In February 2020, federal actions involving Zantac and other ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac/Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.