Commitments and Contingencies

Contractual Obligations

The Company leases buildings and other tangible property. Rent expense under these leases was $4.3 million and $5.1 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2018. Rent expense under these leases was $4.3 million and $8.6 million for the three and six months ended June 30, 2017. The table below reflects the future minimum lease payments, including reasonably assured renewals, due under these non-cancelable leases as of June 30, 2018 (in thousands):



	Operating Leases
Remainder of 2018	$	11,910
2019	25,338
2020	11,840
2021	10,537
2022	9,613
2023	9,278
Thereafter	26,529
Total	$	105,045

Commitments

Commercial Manufacturing, Collaboration, License, and Distribution Agreements

The Company continues to seek to enhance its product line and develop a balanced portfolio of differentiated products through product acquisitions and in-licensing. Accordingly, the Company, in certain instances, may be contractually obligated to make potential future development, regulatory, and commercial milestone, royalty and/or profit sharing payments in conjunction with collaborative agreements or acquisitions that the Company has entered into with third parties. The Company has also licensed certain technologies or intellectual property from various third parties. The Company is generally required to make upfront payments as well as other payments upon successful completion of regulatory or sales milestones. The agreements generally permit the Company to terminate the agreement with no significant continuing obligation. The Company could be required to make significant payments pursuant to these arrangements. These payments are contingent upon the occurrence of certain future events and, given the nature of these events, it is unclear when, if ever, the Company may be required to pay such amounts. Further, the timing of any future payment is not reasonably estimable.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company's legal proceedings are complex, constantly evolving and subject to uncertainty. As such, the Company cannot predict the outcome or impact of the legal proceedings set forth below. While the Company believes it has valid claims and/or defenses to the matters described below, the nature of litigation is unpredictable and the outcome of the following proceedings could include damages, fines, penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. For any proceedings where losses are probable and reasonably capable of estimation, the Company accrues for a potential loss. While these accruals have been deemed reasonable by the Company’s management, the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may ultimately prove inaccurate or incomplete. Additionally, unforeseen circumstances or events may lead the Company to subsequently change its estimates and assumptions. Unless otherwise indicated below, the Company is at this time unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with such litigation.

The Company currently intends to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these proceedings as appropriate. From time to time, however, the Company may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that it believes to be in its best interest. Resolution of any or all claims, legal proceedings or investigations could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and/or cash flow in any given accounting period, or on the Company's overall financial condition.

Additionally, the Company manufactures and derives a portion of its revenue from the sale of pharmaceutical products in the opioid class of drugs, and may therefore face claims arising from the regulation and/or consumption of such products. See "Part II, Item IA. Risk Factors - The development, manufacture and sale of our products involves the risk of product liability and other claims by consumers and other third parties, and insurance against such potential claims is expensive and may be difficult to obtain” for more information.

Although the outcome and costs of the asserted and unasserted claims is difficult to predict, based on the information presently known to management, the Company does not currently expect the ultimate liability, if any, for such matters to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

Medicaid Reimbursement Accrual

The Company is required to provide pricing information to state agencies that administer federal Medicaid programs. Certain state agencies have alleged that manufacturers have reported improper pricing information, which allegedly caused them to overpay reimbursement costs. Reserves are periodically established by the Company for any potential claims or settlements of overpayment. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend against any such claims, it had a reserve of approximately $15 million at June 30, 2018 and December 31, 2017. The ultimate settlement of any potential liability for such claims may be higher or lower than estimated.

Patent Litigation

There is substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical, biological, and biotechnology industries with respect to the manufacture, use, and sale of new products which are the subject of conflicting patent and intellectual property claims. One or more patents often cover the brand name products for which the Company is developing generic versions and the Company typically has patent rights covering the Company’s branded products.

Under federal law, when a drug developer files an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for a generic drug seeking approval before expiration of a patent, which has been listed with the FDA as covering the brand name product, the developer must certify its product will not infringe the listed patent(s) and/or the listed patent is invalid or unenforceable (commonly referred to as a “Paragraph IV” certification). Notices of such certification must be provided to the patent holder, who may file a suit for patent infringement within 45 days of the patent holder’s receipt of such notice. If the patent holder files suit within the 45 days period, the FDA can review and approve the ANDA, but is prevented from granting final marketing approval of the product until a final judgment in the action has been rendered in favor of the generic drug developer, or 30 months from the date the notice was received, whichever is sooner. The Company’s generic products division is typically subject to patent infringement litigation brought by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers in connection with the Company’s Paragraph IV certifications seeking an order delaying the approval of the Company’s ANDA until expiration of the patent(s) at issue in the litigation. Likewise, the Company’s branded products division is currently involved in patent infringement litigation against generic drug manufacturers who have filed Paragraph IV certifications to market their generic drugs prior to expiration of the Company’s patents at issue in the litigation.

The uncertainties inherent in patent litigation make the outcome of such litigation difficult to predict. For the Company’s generic products division, the potential consequences in the event of an unfavorable outcome in such litigation include delaying launch of its generic products until patent expiration. If the Company were to launch its generic product prior to successful resolution of a patent litigation, the Company could be liable for potential damages measured by the profits lost by the branded product manufacturer rather than the profits earned by the Company if is found to infringe a valid, enforceable patent. For the Company’s branded products division, an unfavorable outcome may significantly accelerate generic competition ahead of expiration of the patents covering the Company’s branded products. All such litigation typically involves significant expense.

The Company is generally responsible for all of the patent litigation fees and costs associated with current and future products not covered by its alliance and collaboration agreements. The Company has agreed to share legal expenses with respect to third-party and Company products under the terms of certain of the alliance and collaboration agreements. The Company records the costs of patent litigation as expense in the period when incurred for products it has developed, as well as for products which are the subject of an alliance or collaboration agreement with a third-party.

Patent Defense Matters

Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC (Mometasone furoate)

In March 2015, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp filed suit against Amneal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging patent infringement based on the filing of the Amneal’s ANDA for a generic alternative to Merck’s Nasonex^® product. The District Court trial was completed on June 22, 2016. The court issued an opinion finding that Amneal’s proposed generic product did not infringe the asserted patent. Merck filed an appeal of that decision with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s opinion, denied Merck’s request for rehearing, and issued the mandate on May 11, 2018. Amneal launched its generic version of the product on April 5, 2017, prior to the appellate court decision, and continues to sell the product as of June 30, 2018.

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et. al. (Aripiprazole)

In March 2015, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. filed suit against Amneal in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement based on the filing of Amneal’s ANDA for a generic alternative to Otsuka’s Abilify^® tablet product. Otsuka filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit related to rulings from the District Court regarding some of the patents-in-suit. The District Court has not yet set a trial date for the remaining patents-in-suit. Amneal, like a number of other generic manufacturers, has launched its generic version of Otsuka’s Abilify^® “at-risk,” prior to the rendering of an appellate court decision, and continues to sell the product as of June 30, 2018.

Patent Infringement Matters

Impax Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Lannett Holdings, Inc. and Lannett Company (Zomig®)

In July 2014, Impax filed suit against Lannett Holdings, Inc. and Lannett Company (collectively, “Lannett”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement based on the filing of the Lannett ANDA relating to Zolmitriptan Nasal Spray, 5mg, generic to Zomig® Nasal Spray. The case went to trial in September 2016. On March 29, 2017, the District Court issued a Trial Opinion finding the asserted patents valid and infringed. On April 17, 2017, the District Court entered a Final Judgment and Injunction that, inter alia, bars FDA approval of Lannett’s proposed generic product prior to May 29, 2021. On May 12, 2017, Lannett filed a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 28, 2018, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision in full. Lannett has until August 13, 2018 to request a rehearing.

Impax Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (Zomig®)

On September 23, 2016, Impax filed suit against Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“Par”) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging patent infringement based on the filing of the Par ANDA relating to Zolmitriptan Nasal Spray, 2.5 mg and 5 mg, generic to Zomig® Nasal Spray. On October 12, 2016, the parties stipulated to stay the case pending the outcome of the related case, Impax Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Lannett matter described above. On April 24, 2017, the parties stipulated that the stay shall remain in effect until the Impax Laboratories, LLC, et al. v. Lannett matter is fully resolved. On July 10, 2018, Par notified Impax that it had converted its Paragraph IV certification with respect to the sole patent-in-suit to a Paragraph III certification, and requested that Impax dismiss the lawsuit. The stipulation of dismissal was entered into and the lawsuit was dismissed on August 7, 2018.

Impax Laboratories, LLC., et al. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. and Actavis Pharma Inc. (Rytary^®)

In September 2015, Impax filed suit against Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. and Actavis Pharma Inc. (collectively, “Actavis”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging patent infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,094,427; 8,377,474; 8,454,998; 8,557,283; 9,089,607; 9,089,608, based on the filing of the Actavis ANDA relating to carbidopa and levodopa extended release capsules, generic to Rytary^®. Impax filed related actions alleging infringement of later-issued U.S. Patent No. 9,463,246 in December 2016 and of later-issued U.S. Patent No. 9,533,046 in May 2017. Both related actions were consolidated with the lead action. On December 15, 2017, the Patent and Trademark Office issued an Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate canceling all claims of the ‘427 patent; the parties subsequently stipulated to dismiss with prejudice all claims and counterclaims relating to the ‘427 patent. Fact discovery and claim construction briefing have concluded and a claim construction hearing was held on April 26, 2017. On May 9, 2017, the District Court issued a decision interpreting certain claim terms in dispute in the litigation. Subject to reservation of all rights to appeal the Court’s May 9, 2017 decision, the parties stipulated to dismiss without prejudice all claims and counterclaims relating to the ‘474, ‘998, and ‘607 patents, and the Court entered an order recognizing this stipulation on June 8, 2017. The parties have completed expert discovery and Actavis filed a summary judgment motion on October 23, 2017. On March 8, 2018, the Court issued an Opinion and Order, granting in part Actavis’s motion for summary judgment. A four day trial was held in May 14, 2018. The parties reached a settlement agreement in June 2018, before post-trial briefing was complete. The case has been dismissed.

Impax Laboratories, LLC. v. Sandoz Inc. (Rytary^®)

On March 31, 2017, Impax filed suit against Sandoz Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,094,427; 8,377,474; 8,454,998; 8,557,283; 9,089,607; 9,089,608; 9,463,246; and 9,533,046, based on the filing of Sandoz’s ANDA relating to carbidopa and levodopa extended release capsules, generic to Rytary^®. Sandoz answered the complaint on February 28, 2018. Fact discovery has not yet commenced.

Impax Laboratories, LLC. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (Rytary^®)

On December 21, 2017, Impax filed suit against Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, “Zydus”) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,089,608, based on the filing of Zydus’s ANDA relating to carbidopa and levodopa extended release capsules, generic to Rytary^®. Zydus answered the complaint on April 27, 2018, asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,094,427; 8,377,474; 8,454,998; 8,557,283; and 9,089,607. Impax answered Zydus’s counterclaims on June 1, 2018. A case schedule has been set with trial anticipated in February 2020.

Other Litigation Related to the Company’s Business

Solodyn® Antitrust Class Actions

From July 2013 to January 2016, 18 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against manufacturers of the brand drug Solodyn® and its generic equivalents, including Impax.

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 23, 2013, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 1, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On August 29, 2013, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on August 30, 2013, re-filed the same complaint in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 9, 2013, Plaintiff Local 274 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 12, 2013, Plaintiff Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 25 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 27, 2013, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 29, 2013, Plaintiff Heather Morgan, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 30, 2013, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 9, 2013, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 24, 2013, Plaintiff City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 2, 2013, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Stationary Engineers Local 39 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 7, 2013, Painters District Council No. 30 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 25, 2013, Plaintiff Man-U Service Contract Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 13, 2014, Plaintiff Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 19, 2014, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On February 25, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the District of Massachusetts for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation.

On March 26, 2015, Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson’s LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On April 8, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against Impax and the other generic defendants.

On April 16, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On May 1, 2015, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action be transferred to the District of Massachusetts, to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings. The original complaint filed by the plaintiffs asserted claims only against defendant Medicis. On October 5, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting claims against Impax and the other generic defendants.

On January 25, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On February 11, 2016, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ordered the action to be transferred to the District of Massachusetts to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings.

The consolidated amended complaints allege that Medicis engaged in anticompetitive schemes by, among other things, filing frivolous patent litigation lawsuits, submitting frivolous Citizen Petitions, and entering into anticompetitive settlement agreements with several generic manufacturers, including Impax, to delay generic competition of Solodyn® and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On August 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints. On October 16, 2017, the Court certified the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ and End-Payor Plaintiffs’ classes. Trial began on March 12, 2018. During March 2018, Impax separately settled all claims with the direct purchaser plaintiff class, retailer plaintiffs and the end payor plaintiff class for a total settlement amount of $84.5 million prior to the Combination and the cases were dismissed. The settlements with the class plaintiffs are subject to court approval. The settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class was preliminarily approved by the Court on March 12, 2018, and the settlement with the end payor plaintiff class was preliminarily approved by the Court on April 5, 2018. Both class settlements were granted final Court approval on July 18, 2018.

Opana ER® FTC Antitrust Suit

On February 25, 2014, Impax received a Civil Investigative Demand ("CID") from the FTC concerning its investigation into the drug Opana® ER and its generic equivalents. On March 30, 2016, the FTC filed a complaint against Impax, Endo, and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Impax and Endo violated antitrust laws when they entered into a June 2010 co-promotion and development agreement and a June 2010 settlement agreement that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. In July 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and a motion to sever the claims regarding Opana® ER from claims with respect to a separate settlement agreement that was challenged by the FTC. On October 20, 2016, the Court granted the motion to sever, formally terminating the suit against Impax, with an order that the FTC re-file no later than November 3, 2016 and dismissed the motion to dismiss as moot. On October 25, 2016, the FTC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. On January 19, 2017, the FTC filed a Part 3 Administrative complaint against Impax with similar allegations regarding Impax’s June 2010 settlement agreement with Endo that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. Impax filed its answer to the Administrative Complaint on February 7, 2017. Trial concluded on November 15, 2017. On May 11, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Impax and dismissed the case in its entirety. The government has appealed this ruling to the five Federal Trade Commissioners, who will review the case de novo. Briefing on the appeal to the Federal Trade Commission will conclude on August 24, 2018. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled.

Opana ER® Antitrust Class Actions

From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and end-payor (indirect) purchasers, as well as by certain direct purchasers, against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER® and Impax.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 4, 2014, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 6, 2018, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a motion to voluntarily dismiss its complaint with prejudice. The court granted that motion on June 11, 2018.

On June 6, 2014, Plaintiff Value Drug Company, a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. On June 26, 2014, this Plaintiff withdrew its complaint from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and on July 16, 2014, re-filed the same complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 19, 2014, Plaintiff Wisconsin Masons’ Health Care Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 17, 2014, Plaintiff Massachusetts Bricklayers, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 19, 2014, Plaintiff Meijer Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On October 3, 2014, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On November 17, 2014, Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the pending actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation.

On December 19, 2014, Plaintiff Kim Mahaffay, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California, Alameda County, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated. On January 27, 2015, the Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

On January 12, 2015, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 26, 2015 Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson’s LLC, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On April 23, 2015, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp, direct purchasers, filed a separate complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER® and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Consolidated amended complaints were filed on May 4, 2015 by direct purchaser plaintiffs and end-payor (indirect) purchaser plaintiffs.

On July 3, 2015, defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints, as well as the complaints of the “Opt-Out Plaintiffs” (Walgreen Co., The Kruger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company L.P., Albertson’s LLC, Rite Aid Corporation and Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.).

On February 1, 2016, CVS Pharmacy, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The parties agreed that CVS Pharmacy, Inc. would be bound by the Court’s ruling on the defendants’ motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs’ complaints.

On February 10, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint, and denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint. The end-payor purchaser plaintiffs filed a second consolidated amended complaint and Impax moved to dismiss certain state law claims. On August 11, 2016, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the end-payor purchaser plaintiffs’ second consolidated amended complaint. Impax has filed its answer.

On February 25, 2016, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Opt-Out Plaintiffs’ complaints, with leave to amend. The Opt-Out Plaintiffs and CVS Pharmacy, Inc. have filed amended complaints and Impax has filed its answer.

Discovery is ongoing. No trial date has been scheduled.

Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al.

In August 2015, a complaint was filed against Amneal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Amneal and Forest Laboratories. Amneal was one of a number of pharmaceutical companies named in the lawsuit. The settlement agreement at issue settled the patent litigation between Forest Laboratories and Amneal regarding Namenda^© immediate release tablets. On September 13, 2016, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the federal claims and stayed the state law claims pending against Amneal and the other generic pharmaceutical company defendants until the federal claims are resolved. The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to the state law claims without prejudice to renew the motion after the federal claims have been resolved. The court cited the interests of judicial economy and the myriad state antitrust and unfair business practices laws as the basis for severing the state law claims and placing them on the court’s inactive docket. The court’s decision places the entirety of the claims pending against Amneal and the other generic pharmaceutical companies on the court’s inactive docket, which effectively stays the litigation as to Amneal until the federal claims are resolved or until the court removes those claims from its inactive docket.

United States Department of Justice Investigations

Previously on November 6, 2014, Impax disclosed that one of its sales representatives received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the United States Justice Department (the “Justice Department”). In connection with this same investigation, on March 13, 2015, Impax received a grand jury subpoena from the Justice Department requesting the production of information and documents regarding the sales, marketing, and pricing of certain generic prescription medications. In particular, the Justice Department’s investigation currently focuses on four generic medications: digoxin tablets, terbutaline sulfate tablets, prilocaine/lidocaine cream, and calcipotriene topical solution. The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue cooperating with the investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation.

On April 30, 2018, Impax received a CID from the Civil Division of the Justice Department (the “Civil Division”). The CID requests the production of information and documents regarding the pricing and sale of Impax’s pharmaceuticals and Impax’s interactions with other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. According to the CID, the investigation concerns allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Impax, engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted to the Federal government. The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue cooperating with the Civil Division’s investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation.

Attorney General of the State of Connecticut Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum

On July 14, 2014, Impax received a subpoena and interrogatories (the “Subpoena”) from the State of Connecticut Attorney General (“Connecticut AG”) concerning its investigation into sales of Impax's generic product, digoxin. According to the Connecticut AG, the investigation is to determine whether anyone engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce which has the effect of (i) fixing, controlling or maintaining prices or (ii) allocating or dividing customers or territories relating to the sale of digoxin in violation of Connecticut state antitrust law. The Company has produced documents and information in response to the Subpoena. To the knowledge of the Company, no proceedings by the Connecticut AG have been initiated against the Company at this time; however, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this investigation.

Texas State Attorney General Civil Investigative Demand

On May 27, 2014, a CID was served on Amneal by the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Texas (the “Texas AG”) relating to products distributed by Amneal under a specific Amneal labeler code. Shortly thereafter, Amneal received a second CID with respect to the same products sold by Interpharm Holding, Inc. (“Interpharm”), the assets of which had been acquired by Amneal in June 2008. Amneal completed its production of the direct and indirect sales transaction data in connection with the products at issue and provided this information to the Texas AG in November 2015. In May 2016, the Texas AG delivered two settlement demands to Amneal in connection with alleged overpayments made by the State of Texas for such products under its Medicaid programs. For the Amneal and Interpharm products at issue, the Texas AG’s initial demand was for an aggregate total of $36 million based on $16.2 million in alleged overpayments. After analyzing the Texas AG’s demand, Amneal raised certain questions regarding the methodology used in the Texas AG’s overpayment calculations, including the fact that the calculations treated all pharmacy claims after 2012 for the products at issue as claims for over-the-counter (“OTC”) drugs, even though the products were prescription pharmaceuticals. This had the effect of increasing the alleged overpayment because the dispensing fee for OTC drugs was lower than that for prescription drugs. Therefore, the Texas AG’s calculations were derived by subtracting a lower (and incorrect) OTC dispensing fee from the higher (and correct) prescription dispensing fee. The Texas AG later acknowledged this discrepancy and is in the process of re-calculating the alleged overpayment.

In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation

From March 2016 to April 2017, 22 complaints were filed as class actions on behalf of direct and indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic digoxin and doxycycline and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products. From January 2017 to April 2017, three complaints were filed on behalf of indirect purchasers against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of these generic products.

On March 2, 2016, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 9, 2016.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On March 25, 2016, Plaintiff NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 4, 2016, Plaintiff Pipe Trade Services MN, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 25, 2016, Plaintiff Edward Carpinelli, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On April 27, 2016, Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 2, 2016, Plaintiff Nina Diamond, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 6, 2016, Plaintiff Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 12, 2016, Plaintiff The City of Providence, Rhode Island, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 18, 2016, Plaintiff KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On May 19, 2016, Plaintiff Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 8, 2016, Plaintiff United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 17, 2016, Plaintiff Ottis McCrary, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 20, 2016, Plaintiff Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 27, 2016, Plaintiff César Castillo, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On June 29, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 1, 2016, Plaintiff Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Ahold USA, Inc., a direct purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 7, 2016, Plaintiff United Here Health, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On September 20, 2016, Plaintiff Valerie Velardi, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated.

On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and the Company alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

On April 17, 2017, Plaintiff UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

On April 25, 2017, Plaintiff Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company, an indirect purchaser, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against manufacturers of generic lidocaine/prilocaine and Impax alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of this generic drug.

On May 19, 2016, several indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and consolidate the actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Judicial Panel ordered the actions consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and ordered that the actions be renamed “In re Generic Digoxin and Doxycycline Antitrust Litigation.”

On January 27, 2017, plaintiffs filed two consolidated class action complaints.

On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The consolidated actions have been renamed In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. Consolidated class action complaints for each of the 18 drugs were filed on August 15, 2017. Direct purchaser plaintiffs, end-payer plaintiffs, and indirect reseller plaintiffs filed consolidated class complaints against Impax for two products, digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine.

On October 6, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. Briefing on the motion to dismiss is complete and a decision is pending. On February 9, 2018, the Court issued an order denying the discovery stay and allowing certain fact discovery to proceed.

On January 19, 2018, Plaintiffs The Kroger Co., Albertsons Companies, LLC, and H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P., opt-outs, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against 35 companies, including Impax, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain and/or stabilize prices of 30 drugs and specifically digoxin and lidocaine/prilocaine with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set.

On June 22, 2018, Plaintiffs Ahold USA, Inc., César Castillo, Inc., FWK Holdings, L.L.C., KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., and Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. filed a complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against 23 companies, including Impax, and one individual, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs, specifically glyburide-metformin and metronidazole with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set.

On June 27, 2018, Plaintiffs Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC and Marion Healthcare, LLC filed a motion seeking leave to file a complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against seven named defendants, alleging a horizontal and vertical distributor conspiracy to fix prices and allocate sales of lidocaine products. The Court has not ruled on the Plaintiffs’ motion for leave to file the new complaint and no schedule has been set.

On August 3, 2018, Plaintiff Humana Inc. filed a complaint against 37 companies, including the Company, as the successor to Impax, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various drugs, specifically digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine with respect to Impax. No schedule has been set.

Prescription Opioid Litigation.

The Company or certain of its affiliates have been named as a defendant in various matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. The Company is aware that other individuals and states and political subdivisions are filing comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers and parties that have promoted and sold prescription opioid pain relievers, and additional suits may be filed.

The complaints, asserting claims under provisions of different state law and, in one case, Federal law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing of opioids, and seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. None of the complaints specifies the exact amount of damages at issue. The Company and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or intend to file motions to dismiss where possible. Each of the opioid-related matters described below is in its early stages. The Company is cooperating with the investigations relating to these matters, which are ongoing, and intends to continue to vigorously defend these cases. In light of those facts and the inherent uncertainties of civil litigation, the Company is not in a position to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters.

On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Linda Hughes, as the mother of Nathan Hughes, decedent, filed her complaint in Missouri state court naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Impax, five other pharmaceutical company defendants, and three healthcare provider defendants. Plaintiff alleges that use of defendants’ opioid medications caused the death of her son, Nathan Hughes. In her original complaint, plaintiff requested damages against the defendants and certification of a class action. Plaintiff abandoned her request for a class action in her December 22, 2017, amended complaint. In her amended complaint, plaintiff alleges causes of action against Amneal and Impax for strict product liability, negligent product liability, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case was removed to federal court on September 18, 2017. It was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on February 2, 2018, and is part of the multidistrict litigation pending as In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the “MDL”). Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case to Missouri state court. That motion remains pending before the MDL court. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.

On March 15, 2018, plaintiff Scott Ellington, purporting to represent the State of Arkansas, more than sixty counties and a dozen cities, filed his complaint naming Gemini Laboratories, LLC and fifty-one other pharmaceutical companies as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Gemini and the other pharmaceutical company defendants improperly marketed, sold, and distributed opioid medications and failed to adequately warn about the risks of those medications. The complaint also includes claims against distributors and retailers of opioid medications. Plaintiffs allege causes of actions against Gemini and the other pharmaceutical company defendants for negligence and nuisance and alleged violations of multiple Arkansas statutes. Plaintiffs request past damages and restitution for monies allegedly spent by the State of Arkansas and the county and city plaintiffs for “extraordinary and additional services” for responding to what plaintiffs term the “Arkansas Opioid Epidemic.” Plaintiffs also seek prospective damages to allow them to “comprehensively intervene in the Arkansas Opioid Epidemic,” punitive and treble damages as provided by law, and their costs and fees. Plaintiffs’ complaint does not include any specific damage amounts alleged by plaintiffs. Gemini has filed a general denial and, on June 28, 2018, it joined the other pharmaceutical company defendants in moving to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint.

On March 27, 2018, plaintiff American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. filed its complaint against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Impax, the Impax Generics Division, and thirty-five other pharmaceutical company defendants. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of insurers that since January 1, 2010, allegedly have been wrongfully required to: (i) reimburse for prescription opioids that allegedly were promoted, sold, and distributed illegally and improperly by the pharmaceutical company defendants; and (ii) incur costs for treatment of overdoses of opioid medications, misuse of those medications, or addiction to them. Plaintiff’s complaint also includes claims against distributors of opioid medications. Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Amneal, Impax and the other defendants for negligence, recklessness and gross negligence, unjust enrichment, subrogation, fraud, and violations of federal RICO statutes. Plaintiff demands compensatory and punitive damages, but plaintiff’s complaint does not include any allegation of specific damage amounts. On April 18, 2018, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation conditionally transferred the case to the MDL. Two defendants opposed transfer of the case, and there has not been a final determination whether the case will be transferred. On or about May 2, 2018, the case was transferred to the MDL. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.

On May 30, 2018, plaintiff William J. Comstock filed his complaint against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and four other pharmaceutical company defendants. Plaintiff alleges he became addicted to opioid medications manufactured and sold by the pharmaceutical company defendants, which plaintiff contends caused him to experience opioid-induced psychosis, prolonged hospitalizations, pain, and suffering. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Amneal and the other pharmaceutical company defendants for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for medical malpractice against defendant Nadia Toshani, M.D. On July 12, 2018, Amneal and other defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Currently, the case is the subject of a conditional order to transfer the case to the National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. An opposition to the transfer was filed by defendants who are expected to be dismissed from the case.

On June 18, 2018, a Subpoena and CID issued by the Office of the Attorney General of Kentucky, Office of Consumer Protection was served on Amneal. The CID contains eleven requests for production of documents pertaining to opioid medications manufactured and/or sold by Amneal, or for which Amneal holds an Abbreviated New Drug Application. The Company is evaluating the CID and has been in communication with the Office of the Attorney General about the scope of the CID, the response to the CID, and the timing of the response. It is unknown if the Office of the Attorney General will pursue any claim or file a lawsuit against Amneal. The Attorney General has filed six lawsuits against manufacturers and distributors of opioid medications asserting that those companies engaged in improper marketing, sales and distribution of opioid medications and failed to adequately warn about the risks of opioid medications. In those lawsuits, the Attorney General has demanded injunctive relief, civil penalties, restitution, compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and awards of attorney’s fees. If the Attorney General files a lawsuit, the Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit. The Company's investigation relative to the CID is ongoing and there is no case or claim to evaluate at this time. Accordingly, the Company is not in a position to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome if the Attorney General files a lawsuit.

On July 9, 2018, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed a First Amended Complaint in its case pending in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation (The Muscogee (Creek) Nation v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation), Member Case No. 1:18-op-45459-DAP) against the Company and 55 other defendants consisting of pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers, distributors, and pharmacies. Plaintiff describes itself in the First Amended Complaint as a federally recognized Indian tribe with a membership of 83,570 citizens. Plaintiff alleges it exercises sovereign governmental authority over its citizens and within its territory, which it describes as covering 4,867 square miles within the state of Oklahoma. Plaintiff alleges it has been damaged by the Company and the other pharmaceutical company defendants alleged improper marketing, including off-label marketing, failure to adequately warn of the risks of opioid medications, and failure to properly monitor and control diversion of opioid medications within the Nation. The case has been designated as a bellwether motion to dismiss case for the MDL, meaning it is a test case for arguments directed at the complaints filed by Indian tribes in the MDL cases. It is not a bellwether or test case at this juncture for any other purpose. On July 23, 2018, the MDL Court issued the following scheduling order for briefing on the motion to dismiss: (i) motions to dismiss are due by August 31, 2018; (ii) plaintiff’s oppositions are due by October 1, 2018; (iii) amicus briefs (by other Indian tribes) are due by October 8, 2018; and (iv) defendants’ reply briefs are due by November 6, 2018, assuming amicus briefs are filed October 8 (defendants’ reply briefs are due no later than 28 days after the amicus briefs are filed).

On July 18, 2018, the County of Webb Texas requested waivers of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and the MDL Court’s CMOs from Amneal and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, in its case pending in the National Prescription Opiate Litigation Multidistrict Litigation (County of Webb, Texas v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Ohio, MDL No. 2804 (In Re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation), Member Case No. 1:18-op-45175-DAP). Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint filed against Amneal and forty-one other defendants consisting of pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers, distributors, and pharmacy benefit managers, contains allegations that plaintiff is a county created under the authority of the State of Texas located in southern Texas with approximately 272,000 residents. Plaintiff alleges damages as a result of Amneal’s and the pharmaceutical company defendants’ improper marketing, failure to adequately warn of the risks of opioid medications, and failure to properly monitor and control diversion of opioid medications in or affecting Webb County. Plaintiff alleges causes of action against Amneal and other pharmaceutical company defendants for negligence, negligence per se, nuisance, gross negligence, fraud, civil conspiracy, violation of Texas consumer protection and deceptive trade practice acts (Tex. Bus. & Comm. Code § 17.41, et. seq.), unjust enrichment, and violations of federal RICO statutes. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.

AWP Litigation

On December 30, 2015, Plumbers’ Local Union No. 690 Health Plan and others similarly situated filed a class action against several generic drug manufacturers, including Impax, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division, alleging that Impax and others violated the law, including the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection law, by inflating the Average Wholesale Price (“AWP”) of certain generic drugs. The case has since been removed to federal court in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. By virtue of an amended complaint filed on March 29, 2016, the suit has been amended to comprise a nationwide class of third party payors that allegedly reimbursed or purchased certain generic drugs based on AWP and to assert causes of action under the laws of other states in addition to Pennsylvania. On May 17, 2016, this case was stayed. On January 18, 2017, Impax, along with the other defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaint. On September 15, 2017, the Court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The time period to file an appeal has lapsed.

On February 5, 2016, Delaware Valley Health Care Coalition filed a lawsuit based on substantially similar allegations in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Civil Trial Division that seeks declaratory judgment. On May 20, 2016, this case was stayed pending resolution of the federal court action described above.

Impax Laboratories, LLC. v. Turing Pharmaceuticals AG

On May 2, 2016, Impax filed suit against Turing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging breach of the terms of the contract by which Turing purchased from Impax the right to sell the drug Daraprim®, as well as the right to sell certain Daraprim® inventory (the “Purchase Agreement”). Specifically, Impax seeks (i) a declaratory judgment that Impax may revoke Turing’s right to sell Daraprim® under Impax's labeler code and national drug codes; (ii) specific performance to require Turing to comply with its obligations under the Purchase Agreement for past due reports and for reports going forward; and (iii) money damages to remedy Turing’s failure to reimburse Impax for chargebacks and Medicaid rebate liability when due, currently in excess of $40.9 million and for future amounts that may be due. Turing has filed its answer and a counterclaim against Impax alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Discovery is closed. On October 14, 2016, Impax filed a motion for summary judgment. The District Court issued its order on September 29, 2017. The Court found that Turing breached the Purchase Agreement by failing to reimburse Impax for Medicaid rebate liability, however, the Court also found that Impax breached the Purchase Agreement by not filing a restatement with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services at Turing’s request. Therefore, Impax was not entitled to damages. On October 13, 2017, Impax filed a Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration of the Summary Judgment Order. Briefing on the motion is complete and a decision is pending. On May 29, 2018, Impax filed a letter with the Court informing it of Impax’s submission of a restatement of its Average Manufacturer Price for Daraprim for the third quarter of fiscal year 2015 and the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2015 and again requesting an order granting its Motion for Summary Judgment.

Telephone Consumer Protection Act Cases

On January 31, 2017, Plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy LLC filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act of 2005 (the "Telephone Consumer Protection Act"). On March 27, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiff filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2017. On July 18, 2017, the parties reached an agreement in principle regarding the class settlement. On September 29, 2017, the District Court preliminarily approved the proposed class settlement. The Court held a hearing on March 6, 2018 and issued an order with final approval of the proposed class settlement.

On February 14, 2017, Plaintiff Medicine To Go Pharmacies, Inc. filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. On April 17, 2017, Impax filed a motion to dismiss, transfer, or stay this case in light of the first-filed case described above. This case was transferred to the Southern District of Alabama. On September 15, 2017, the Court stayed this matter pending the final approval of the class settlement described above.

Securities Class Action

On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint on June 1, 2017 and briefing has been completed.

Shareholder Derivative Action

On February 22, 2017, Plaintiff Ed Lippman filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of Impax against former executives, a current executive, and certain current members of the board of directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste. This matter has been stayed pending the securities class action referenced above.

Securities Class Actions related to the Combination

On December 12, 2017 and December 14, 2017, Plaintiffs Susan Vana and David Stone, respectively, filed class action complaints in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated against Amneal and Impax alleging violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 generally alleging that the Registration Statement on Form S-4 related to the Combination contains false and misleading statements and/or omissions concerning the financial projections of Impax, Amneal, and the combined company; Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC’s valuation analyses and Fairness Opinions relating to Impax and Amneal; potential conflicts of interest associated with one of Impax’s financial advisors and the Combination with Amneal; and background information of the proposed business combination, including confidentiality agreements entered into by Impax in connection with the Combination. On April 4, 2018, plaintiffs filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order voluntarily dismissing the actions and on April 5, 2018, the court issued an order to dismiss the actions. Plaintiffs did not file any petition for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses by the court-ordered deadline of June 1, 2018.

Teva v. Impax Laboratories, LLC.

On February 15, 2017, Plaintiffs Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. (“Teva”) filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons (precursor to a complaint) in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against Impax alleging that Impax breached the Strategic Alliance Agreement between the parties by not indemnifying Teva in its two litigations with GlaxoSmithKline LLC regarding Wellbutrin^® XL. Impax filed a Motion to Disqualify Teva’s counsel related to the matter, and on August 23, 2017, the Court denied Impax's motion. Following the Court’s order, Teva filed its complaint. Impax filed an appeal regarding the disqualification order, and a decision is pending. The matter is currently stayed pending an appellate decision on the disqualification order.

California Wage and Hour Class Action

On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California wage and hour laws. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s individual claims, however, it struck all of Plaintiff’s class allegations. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018 and hearing is scheduled for August 24, 2018. Discovery is ongoing.