Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies 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. Refer to Note 5. Alliance and Collaboration for additional information. Certain of these arrangements are with related parties. Refer to Note 24. Related Party Transactions for additional information. 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. Additionally, the Company is subject to legal proceedings that are not 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. When the Company has a probable loss for which a reasonable estimate of the liability is a range of losses and no amount within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company records the loss at the low end of the range. 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 unable at this time to estimate the possible loss or the range of loss, if any, associated with such legal proceedings and claims. 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. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, the Company recorded net charges of $25 million, $6 million, and $12 million, respectively, for commercial legal proceedings and claims. The Company had total liabilities for legal proceedings and claims of $58 million and $11 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, of which $33 million and $6 million, respectively, were recorded for a securities class action covered by insurance (refer to Securities Class Actions below and Note 13. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets for additional information). An insurance recovery will be recorded in the period in which it is probable the recovery will be realized. The ultimate resolution of any or all claims, legal proceedings or investigations could differ materially from our estimate and have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and/or cash flows 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. The Company believes it has meritorious claims and defenses in these matters and intends to vigorously prosecute and defend them. However, because the ultimate outcome and costs associated with litigation are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict, except as otherwise stated, 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, and any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition. Medicaid Reimbursement and Price Reporting Matters The Company is required to provide pricing information to state agencies, including 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. Other agencies have alleged that manufacturers have failed to timely file required reports concerning pricing information. Liabilities are periodically established by the Company for any potential claims or settlements of overpayment. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. 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-day period, the FDA can review and tentatively approve the ANDA, but generally 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 Generics segment 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. The uncertainties inherent in patent litigation make the outcome of such litigation difficult to predict. For the Company’s Generics segment, 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 it is found to infringe a valid, enforceable patent, or enhanced treble damages in cases of willful infringement. For the Company’s Specialty segment, 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 Matter Biogen International GMBH, et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. (Dimethyl Fumarate) In June 2017, Biogen International GMBH (“Biogen”) filed suit against Amneal and various other generic manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“D. Del.”) alleging patent infringement based on the filing of ANDAs by Amneal and others for generic alternatives to Biogen’s Tecfidera® (dimethyl fumarate) capsules product (Biogen International GMBH, et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00823-MN). Biogen also filed suit in June 2017 against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (“N.D. W. Va.”) relating to Mylan’s own ANDA for Tecfidera®. On June 18, 2020, the N.D. W. Va. court issued an order finding the sole Biogen patent at issue invalid. Biogen has appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 22, 2020, the D. Del. court entered judgment in favor of defendants (including Amneal), adopting the finding of invalidity made by the N.D. W. Va. court but ordering that claims could be reinstated based on the result of the appeal of the N.D. W. Va. court’s order. Amneal, like Mylan and a number of other generic manufacturers, has now launched its generic dimethyl fumarate capsules product “at-risk,” pending the outcome of Biogen’s appeal of the N.D. W. Va. court’s order before the Federal Circuit. On November 30, 2021, a panel of three Federal Circuit judges affirmed the N.D. W. Va. court’s order that Biogen’s patent is invalid. On December 30, 2021, Biogen filed a petition to request “en banc” review by the full court. Amneal’s D.Del. case continues to be held in abeyance until the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in the Mylan case. Other Litigation Related to the Company’s Business Opana ER® FTC Matters On February 25, 2014, Impax received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“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 Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“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 settlement agreement that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. In October 2016, the Court granted Impax’s motion to sever, formally terminating the suit against Impax. In January 2017, the FTC filed a Part 3 Administrative Complaint against Impax with similar allegations regarding the 2010 settlement. Following trial, in May 2018, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Impax and dismissed the Complaint in its entirety. FTC Complaint Counsel appealed the decision to the full Commission, and in March 2019, the FTC issued an Opinion & Order reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. The Opinion & Order did not provide for any monetary damages but enjoined Impax from entering into future agreements containing certain terms. Impax filed a Petition for Review of the FTC’s Opinion & Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on April 13, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision denying Impax’s Petition for Review, effectively affirming the FTC’s Opinion & Order. On September 10, 2021, Impax filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in December 2021. On July 12, 2019, the Company received a CID from the FTC concerning an August 2017 settlement agreement between Impax and Endo, which resolved a subsequent patent infringement and breach of contract dispute between the parties regarding the above-referenced June 2010 settlement agreement related to Opana® ER. The Company cooperated with the FTC regarding the CID. On January 25, 2021, the FTC filed a complaint against Endo, Impax and Amneal in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the 2017 settlement violated antitrust laws. In April 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint, and that motion is currently pending. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the FTC’s allegations and intends to vigorously defend the action, however, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the litigation. Opana ER® Antitrust Litigation From June 2014 to April 2015, a number of complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) of Opana ER® were filed against Endo and Impax. In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) transferred the actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (“N.D. Ill.”) for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580) (“MDL”). 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. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and served expert reports. Defendants’ oppositions to class certification and expert reports were filed and served on August 29, 2019. On April 15, 2020, defendants filed motions for summary judgment and each side moved to exclude certain opposing experts. On June 4, 2021, the MDL court granted the end-payor plaintiffs’ and direct purchaser plaintiffs’ class certification motions. Defendants appealed certification of the end-payor plaintiffs’ class, and on July 13, 2021, the Seventh Circuit granted defendants’ petition and remanded the case to the MDL to consider specific issues regarding uninjured class members. On August 11, 2021, the MDL court entered an order certifying end-payor plaintiffs’ class with an amended class definition. On June 4, 2021, the MDL also denied defendants’ summary judgment motion except as to certain state law claims and issued an opinion excluding certain experts of both sides. Trial is currently scheduled for June 2022. Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al. In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest’s Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda® IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants’ allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs, subject to Court approval. On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the Company). The settlement is now subject to final approval from the Court. The amount of the settlement was not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements. Attorney General of the State of Connecticut Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum On July 14, 2014, Impax received a subpoena and interrogations 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 concerned whether anyone engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce which had the effect of (i) fixing, controlling or maintaining prices or (ii) allocating or dividing customers or territories relating to the sale of digoxin. Impax cooperated in the investigation and produced documents and information in response to the subpoena in 2014 and 2015. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this investigation. United States Department of Justice Investigations 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 Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). On March 13, 2015, Impax received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ requesting the production of information and documents regarding the sales, marketing, and pricing of four generic prescription medications. Impax has cooperated in the investigation and produced documents and information in response to the subpoenas from 2014 to 2016. 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 DOJ (the “Civil Division”). The CID requests the production of information and documents regarding the pricing and sale of Impax’s pharmaceuticals and interactions with other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding whether generic pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted to the Federal government. Impax has cooperated with the Civil Division’s investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the 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 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. In March 2019, the Texas AG provided Amneal with a re-calculation of the alleged overpayment. In October 2019, Amneal reached an agreement in principle with the Texas AG to settle the matter. The parties executed a settlement agreement and release as of March 5, 2020, and the matter is now closed. In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation Since March 2016, multiple putative antitrust class action complaints have been filed on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers (or end-payors), and indirect resellers, as well as individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers, and municipalities (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) against manufacturers of generic drugs, including Impax and the Company. The complaints allege a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various generic drugs in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2724, (E.D. Pa.)). On May 10, 2019, Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various manufacturers and individuals, including the Company, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for multiple generic drugs. On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of nine additional states and territories. On June 10, 2020, Attorneys General of 46 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia filed a new complaint against various manufacturers and individuals, including the Company, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for additional generic drugs. Plaintiff States seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 9, 2021, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of California in addition to the original Plaintiff States. These lawsuits have been incorporated into MDL No. 2724. Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding. In May, 2021, the Court issued a revised order designating certain plaintiffs’ complaints regarding two generic drug products to proceed as bellwether cases, along with the Plaintiff States’ June 10, 2020 complaint. No final scheduling order has yet been issued for this matter. In May, 2021 the Court issued a revised order designating certain plaintiffs’ complaints regarding two generic drug products to proceed as bellwether cases, along with the Plaintiff States’ June 10, 2020 complaint involving the Company. There is another action in Canada alleging price fixing, among other claims, which has not progressed to date. Prescription Opioid Litigation The Company and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in various matters filed in state and federal courts relating to the sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. Plaintiffs in these actions include state Attorneys General, county and municipal governments, hospitals, Indian tribes, pension funds, third-party payors and individuals. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other forms of relief based on various causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, as well as alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state and federal controlled substances laws and other statutes. All cases involving the Company also name other manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies as defendants, and. there are numerous other cases involving allegations relating to prescription opioid pain relievers against other manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies in which the Company and its affiliates are not named. Nearly all cases pending in federal district courts have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 17-mdl-2804). There are approximately 920 cases in the MDL in which the Company or its affiliates have been named as defendants. The Company also is named in approximately 120 state court cases pending in 11 states. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in many of these cases. No firm trial dates have been set except one case in New Mexico (September 2022). Following a decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in June 2021, the trial court in West Virginia set trial dates for April (manufacturers), July (distributors), and September (pharmacies) 2022, but the Company is not a defendant in the manufacturer trial and it is unclear if the Company will be involved in the trial of any case currently selected by the court. Securities Class Actions On April 17, 2017, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Impax and four former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG). Plaintiff alleges that Impax (1) concealed collusion with competitors to fix the price of the generic drug digoxin; (2) concealed anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac; and (3) overstated the value of the generic drug budesonide. In August 2019, the Court granted Impax’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on January 11, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court’s decision. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit, and Plaintiff filed a motion to intervene seeking to add Sheet Metal Workers’ Pension Fund of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada (“Sheet Metal Workers”) as an additional named Plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit denied the motions, and on April 1, 2021, the case was remanded to the District Court. On April 19, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining claims and an opposition to Sheet Metal Workers’ renewed motion to intervene. In June 2021, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims in the case for $33 million, subject to certain terms and conditions and subject to court approval. The proposed settlement is covered in full by insurance (refer to Note 13. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets). The district court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on November 22, 2021 and scheduled a fairness hearing for March 21, 2022. On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County against the Company and certain current or former officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19). Plaintiffs allege that the May 7, 2018 amended registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose that Amneal allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct to fix generic drug prices. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 30, 2020 and in April 2021 filed a second amended complaint including similar allegations with regard to a November 2017 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/ Impax business combination. The Company’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for class certification are currently pending. In February 2022, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the claims, subject to, among other things, the negotiation and court approval of a definitive settlement agreement. 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 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 (and therefore that Impax is liable to Teva for the amounts it paid to settle those litigations). Impax filed a Motion to Disqualify Teva’s counsel related to the matter, and on August 23, 2017, the trial court denied Impax's motion. Following the trial court’s order, Teva filed its complaint. On September 6, 2017, Impax appealed the trial court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On September 20, 2017, the Superior Court stayed the trial court action pending the outcome of Impax’s appeal. On November 2, 2018, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On November 16, 2018, Impax filed an application for reargument with the Superior Court, which was denied on December 28, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Superior Court remitted the record to the trial court. On February 15, 2019, Impax filed its answer with new matter to Teva’s complaint. On February 19, 2019, the trial court issued a revised case management order providing that, absent any extensions or amendments thereto, discovery was to have closed on July 1, 2019 and the case is expected to be ready for trial by February 3, 2020. On or about March 4, 2019, Teva filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Impax filed its answer and brief in opposition to Teva’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 25, 2019. On April 4, 2019, the trial court denied Teva’s motion. On April 16, 2019, Impax filed a motion to stay the proceedings and compel Teva to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to an Indemnification Release Agreement negotiated and executed by the parties in 2012. Teva’s opposition to the motion was filed on May 7, 2019. On June 11, 2019, the trial court denied Impax’s motion. On June 24, 2019, Impax noticed its intent to appeal to the Superior Court the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration, and moved both to stay the trial court proceedings pending that appeal and for an extension of case management deadlines. On July 12, 2019, the trial court denied both motions. On July 24, 2019, Impax moved the Superior Court to stay all trial court proceedings pending the outcome of Impax’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration and, on August 13, 2019, the Superior Court granted Impax’s motion. Impax filed its opening appellate brief with the Superior Court on September 3, 2019 and Teva filed its response brief on October 3, 2019. In October 2019, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the matter, and in November 2019, the parties executed a settlement agreement and general release. On December 16, 2019, Teva filed with the trial court a praecipe to mark the action settled, discontinued and ended with prejudice. United States Department of Justice / Drug Enforcement Administration Subpoenas On July 7, 2017, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC received an administrative subpoena issued by the Long Island, NY District Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”) requesting information related to compliance with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements. On or about April 12, 2019 and May 28, 2019, the Company received grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (the “USAO”) relating to similar topics concerning the Company’s suspicious order monitoring program and its compliance with the Controlled Substances Act. The Company is cooperating with the USAO in responding to the subpoenas and has entered civil and criminal tolling agreements with the USAO through approximately May 12, 2022. It is not possible to determine the exact outcome of these investigations at this time. On March 14, 2019, Amneal received a subpoena (the “Subpoena”) from an Assistant U.S. Attorney (“AUSA”) for the Southern District of Florida. The Subpoena requests information and documents generally related to the marketing, sale, and distribution of oxymorphone. The Company intends to cooperate with the AUSA regarding the Subpoena. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of its underlying investigation. On October 7, 2019, Amneal received a subpoena from the New York State Department of Financial Services seeking documents and information related to sales of opioid products in the state of New York. The Company is cooperating with the request and providing responsive information. It is not possible to determine the exact outcome of this investigation at this time. Ranitidine Litigation The Company and its affiliates have been named as defendants, along with numerous other pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and retail pharmacy chains, in In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No. 2924), pending in the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose and/or concealed the alleged inherent presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or “NDMA”) in brand-name Zantac® or generic ranitidine and the alleged associated risk of cancer. Consolidated groups of (a) personal injury plaintiffs, (b) economic loss/medical monitoring class action plaintiffs, and (c) third-party payor plaintiffs have each filed master complaints against brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and repackagers of ranitidine-containing products. The Company or its affiliates have been named in the three master complaints and approximately 313 personal injury short form complaints. On December 31, 2020, the Court dismissed in full the three master complaints against the generic manufacturers, including the Company and its affiliates, with leave to file amended complaints on certain claims relating to manufacturing, storage and transportation. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in February 2021, and Defendants filed various motions to dismiss the amended complaints in March 2021. On July 8, 2021, the MDL dismissed all claims against the generic drug manufacturers, including the Company and its affiliates, without leave to file further amended complaints. Plaintiffs have appealed the MDL court’s dismissal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has consolidated the appeals of the personal injury cases. On June 18, 2020, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC was named in a lawsuit filed in New Mexico brought by the New Mexico Attorney General alleging claims of public nuisance, negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws against various brand and generic manufacturers and store-brand distributors of Zantac®/Ranitidine. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as abatement, medical monitoring, restitution and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 17, 2021, and filed a notice of supplemental authority based on the MDL court’s July 2021 dismissal order. The Court denied the motion on August 17, 2021. The Company filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction on January 26, 2022. On November 12, 2020, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC was named in a public nuisance and consumer protection lawsuit filed in state court in Baltimore, Maryland, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. Defendants removed the case to federal court and on April 1, 2021, the case was remanded to state court. On August 23, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. On October 1, 2021, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, were named in a lawsuit filed in Pennsylvania state court along with 25 other defendants, including brand-name manufacturers, generic manufacturers, and one Pennsylvania-based pharmacy. The Complaint largely tracks the dismissed master personal injury complaint from the MDL, and was removed and subsequently transferred to the MDL on November 9, 2021. Metformin Litigation Amneal and AvKARE, Inc. were named as defendants, along with numerous other manufacturers, retail pharmacies, and wholesalers, in several putative class action lawsuits pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (“D.N.J.”), consolidated as In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation (No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH). The lawsuits all allege that defendants made and sold to putative class members generic metformin products that were “adulterated” or “contaminated” with NDMA. An economic loss complaint filed on behalf of consumers and third-party payors who purchased or paid or made reimbursements for metformin alleges that plaintiffs suffered economic losses in connection with their purchases or reimbursements due to the purported contamination. On May 20, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the economic loss complaint, and Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 21, 2021. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the motion was fully briefed on October 18, 2021. Additionally, medical monitoring class action complaints were filed on behalf of consumers who consumed allegedly contaminated metformin allege “cellular damage, genetic harm, and/or are at an increased risk of developing cancer” and seek medical monitoring, including evaluation and treatment. These cases are currently stayed. On March 29, 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama asserting claims against manufacturers of Valsartan, Losartan, and Metformin based on the alleged presence of nitrosamines in those products. The only allegations against Amneal concern Metformin. (Davis v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:21-00254 (M.D. Ala.) (the “Davis Action”)). On May 5, 2021, the JPML transferred the Davis Action into the In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation multi-district litigation for pretrial proceedings. On October 29, 2021, three plaintiffs filed a complaint in the District Court of Douglas County, Nebraska asserting claims against Amneal based on the alleged presence of nitrosamines in metformin. On January 10, 2022, Amneal removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska. (Conrad et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., No. 22-cv-00011-BCB-SMB (D. Neb.)). Amneal’s response to the complaint is due March 3, 2022. Xyrem® (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation Amneal has been named as a defendant, along with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”) and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Jazz’s Xyrem® (sodium oxybate), in several putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the generic manufacturers entered into anticompetitive agreements with Jazz in connection with settling patent litigation related to Xyrem®. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties as well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 16, 2020, the JPML transferred the actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pretrial proceedings consolidated as In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation (No. 5:20-md-02966-LHK). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class complaint in March 2021, which Defendants moved to dismiss. On August 13, 2021, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion, dismissing the federal damages claims and a number of state-law claims, while permitting the remaining claims to proceed. Discovery is currently ongoing. Value Drug Company v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. On August 5, 2021, Value Drug Company filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (“Takeda”) and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Takeda’s Colcrys® (colchicine), including Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys in order to maintain higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws. The Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and on December 28, 2021 the Court granted the motion in full, with leave to amend. On January 18, 2022 Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, making substantively the same antitrust allegations, but alleging that the violations were effectuated by either a single overarching conspiracy or a series of bilateral conspiracies. The Company intends to move to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Galeas v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. On July 27, 2021, Cesy Galeas filed a purported class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., alleging that the payment schedule for certain workers violated New York Labor Law. Specifically, the purported class, which presently consists of one named plaintiff, contends that the Company paid the employees all owed wages, but did so bi-weekly, instead of weekly. The Company has not yet responded to the complaint, but it has notified the Court that it intends to file a motion to dismiss the claims on various grounds.

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. Refer to Note 5. Alliance and Collaboration for additional information. Certain of these arrangements are with related parties. Refer to Note 24. Related Party Transactions for additional information.

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. Additionally, the Company is subject to legal proceedings that are not 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. When the Company has a probable loss for which a reasonable estimate of the liability is a range of losses and no amount within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the Company records the loss at the low end of the range. 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 unable at this time to estimate the possible loss or the range of loss, if any, associated with such legal proceedings and claims.

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. For the years ended December 31, 2021, 2020, and 2019, the Company recorded net charges of $25 million, $6 million, and $12 million, respectively, for commercial legal proceedings and claims. The Company had total liabilities for legal proceedings and claims of $58 million and $11 million as of December 31, 2021 and 2020, respectively, of which $33 million and $6 million, respectively, were recorded for a securities class action covered by insurance (refer to Securities Class Actions

The Company believes it has meritorious claims and defenses in these matters and intends to vigorously prosecute and defend them. However, because the ultimate outcome and costs associated with litigation are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict, except as otherwise stated, 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, and any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition.

The Company is required to provide pricing information to state agencies, including 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. Other agencies have alleged that manufacturers have failed to timely file required reports concerning pricing information. Liabilities are periodically established by the Company for any potential claims or settlements of overpayment. The Company intends to vigorously defend against any such claims. The ultimate settlement of any potential liability for such claims may be higher or lower than estimated.

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-day period, the FDA can review and tentatively approve the ANDA, but generally 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 Generics segment 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.

The uncertainties inherent in patent litigation make the outcome of such litigation difficult to predict. For the Company’s Generics segment, 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 it is found to infringe a valid, enforceable patent, or enhanced treble damages in cases of willful infringement. For the Company’s Specialty segment, 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.

In June 2017, Biogen International GMBH (“Biogen”) filed suit against Amneal and various other generic manufacturers in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (“D. Del.”) alleging patent infringement based on the filing of ANDAs by Amneal and others for generic alternatives to Biogen’s Tecfidera® (dimethyl fumarate) capsules product (Biogen International GMBH, et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al., No. 1:17-cv-00823-MN). Biogen also filed suit in June 2017 against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Mylan”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia (“N.D. W. Va.”) relating to Mylan’s own ANDA for Tecfidera®. On June 18, 2020, the N.D. W. Va. court issued an order finding the sole Biogen patent at issue invalid. Biogen has appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On September 22, 2020, the D. Del. court entered judgment in favor of defendants (including Amneal), adopting the finding of invalidity made by the N.D. W. Va. court but ordering that claims could be reinstated based on the result of the appeal of the N.D. W. Va. court’s order. Amneal, like Mylan and a number of other generic manufacturers, has now launched its generic dimethyl fumarate capsules product “at-risk,” pending the outcome of Biogen’s appeal of the N.D. W. Va. court’s order before the Federal Circuit. On November 30, 2021, a panel of three Federal Circuit judges affirmed the N.D. W. Va. court’s order that Biogen’s patent is invalid. On December 30, 2021, Biogen filed a petition to request “en banc” review by the full court. Amneal’s D.Del. case continues to be held in abeyance until the Federal Circuit issues a mandate in the Mylan case.

On February 25, 2014, Impax received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“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 Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“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 settlement agreement that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. In October 2016, the Court granted Impax’s motion to sever, formally terminating the suit against Impax. In January 2017, the FTC filed a Part 3 Administrative Complaint against Impax with similar allegations regarding the 2010 settlement. Following trial, in May 2018, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Impax and dismissed the Complaint in its entirety. FTC Complaint Counsel appealed the decision to the full Commission, and in March 2019, the FTC issued an Opinion & Order reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s decision. The Opinion & Order did not provide for any monetary damages but enjoined Impax from entering into future agreements containing certain terms. Impax filed a Petition for Review of the FTC’s Opinion & Order with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and on April 13, 2021, the Fifth Circuit issued a decision denying Impax’s Petition for Review, effectively affirming the FTC’s Opinion & Order. On September 10, 2021, Impax filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied in December 2021.

On July 12, 2019, the Company received a CID from the FTC concerning an August 2017 settlement agreement between Impax and Endo, which resolved a subsequent patent infringement and breach of contract dispute between the parties regarding the above-referenced June 2010 settlement agreement related to Opana® ER. The Company cooperated with the FTC regarding the CID. On January 25, 2021, the FTC filed a complaint against Endo, Impax and Amneal in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the 2017 settlement violated antitrust laws. In April 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the FTC’s complaint, and that motion is currently pending. The Company believes it has strong defenses to the FTC’s allegations and intends to vigorously defend the action, however, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the litigation.

In December 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) transferred the actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (“N.D. Ill.”) for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re: Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580) (“MDL”). 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. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and served expert reports. Defendants’ oppositions to class certification and expert reports were

filed and served on August 29, 2019. On April 15, 2020, defendants filed motions for summary judgment and each side moved to exclude certain opposing experts. On June 4, 2021, the MDL court granted the end-payor plaintiffs’ and direct purchaser plaintiffs’ class certification motions. Defendants appealed certification of the end-payor plaintiffs’ class, and on July 13, 2021, the Seventh Circuit granted defendants’ petition and remanded the case to the MDL to consider specific issues regarding uninjured class members. On August 11, 2021, the MDL court entered an order certifying end-payor plaintiffs’ class with an amended class definition. On June 4, 2021, the MDL also denied defendants’ summary judgment motion except as to certain state law claims and issued an opinion excluding certain experts of both sides. Trial is currently scheduled for June 2022.

In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest’s Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda® IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants’ allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiffs, subject to Court approval. On September 10, 2019, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement and indefinitely staying the case as to the settling defendants (including the Company). The settlement is now subject to final approval from the Court. The amount of the settlement was not material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.

On July 14, 2014, Impax received a subpoena and interrogations 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 concerned whether anyone engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce which had the effect of (i) fixing, controlling or maintaining prices or (ii) allocating or dividing customers or territories relating to the sale of digoxin. Impax cooperated in the investigation and produced documents and information in response to the subpoena in 2014 and 2015. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this investigation.

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 Department of Justice (the “DOJ”). On March 13, 2015, Impax received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ requesting the production of information and documents regarding the sales, marketing, and pricing of four generic prescription medications. Impax has cooperated in the investigation and produced documents and information in response to the subpoenas from 2014 to 2016. 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 DOJ (the “Civil Division”). The CID requests the production of information and documents regarding the pricing and sale of Impax’s pharmaceuticals and interactions with other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers regarding whether generic pharmaceutical manufacturers engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted to the Federal government. Impax has cooperated with the Civil Division’s investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation.

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 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. In March 2019, the Texas AG provided Amneal with a re-calculation of the alleged overpayment. In October 2019, Amneal reached an agreement in principle with the Texas AG to settle the matter. The parties executed a settlement agreement and release as of March 5, 2020, and the matter is now closed.

Since March 2016, multiple putative antitrust class action complaints have been filed on behalf of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers (or end-payors), and indirect resellers, as well as individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers, and municipalities (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) against manufacturers of generic drugs, including Impax and the Company. The complaints allege a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for various generic drugs in violation of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. The lawsuits have been consolidated in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2724, (E.D. Pa.)).

On May 10, 2019, Attorneys General of 43 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against various manufacturers and individuals, including the Company, alleging a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for multiple generic drugs. On November 1, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of nine additional states and territories. On June 10, 2020, Attorneys General of 46 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Territory of Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia filed a new complaint against various manufacturers and individuals, including the Company, alleging a conspiracy to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for additional generic drugs. Plaintiff States seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 9, 2021, the State Attorneys General filed an Amended Complaint on behalf of California in addition to the original Plaintiff States. These lawsuits have been incorporated into MDL No. 2724. Fact and document discovery in MDL No. 2724 are proceeding. In May, 2021, the Court issued a revised order designating certain plaintiffs’ complaints regarding two generic drug products to proceed as bellwether cases, along with the Plaintiff States’ June 10, 2020 complaint. No final scheduling order has yet been issued for this matter. In May, 2021 the Court issued a revised order designating certain plaintiffs’ complaints regarding two generic drug products to proceed as bellwether cases, along with the Plaintiff States’ June 10, 2020 complaint involving the Company.

The Company and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in various matters filed in state and federal courts relating to the sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. Plaintiffs in these actions include state Attorneys General, county and municipal governments, hospitals, Indian tribes, pension funds, third-party payors and individuals. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other forms of relief based on various causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, as well as alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state and federal controlled substances laws and other statutes. All cases involving the Company also name other manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies as defendants, and. there are numerous other cases involving allegations relating to prescription opioid pain relievers against other manufacturers, distributors and retail pharmacies in which the Company and its affiliates are not named.

Nearly all cases pending in federal district courts have been consolidated for pre-trial proceedings in an MDL in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 17-mdl-2804). There are approximately 920 cases in the MDL in which the Company or its affiliates have been named as defendants. The Company also is named in approximately 120 state court cases pending in 11 states. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in many of these cases. No firm trial dates have been set except one case in New Mexico (September 2022). Following a decision by the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in June 2021, the trial court in West Virginia set trial dates for April

On April 17, 2017, New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Impax and four former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 (Fleming v. Impax Laboratories Inc., et al., No. 4:16-cv-6557-HSG). Plaintiff alleges that Impax (1) concealed collusion with competitors to fix the price of the generic drug digoxin; (2) concealed anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac; and (3) overstated the value of the generic drug budesonide. In August 2019, the Court granted Impax’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s second amended complaint in its entirety. Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and on January 11, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued an unpublished opinion affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court’s decision. Defendants subsequently filed a motion for rehearing with the Ninth Circuit, and Plaintiff filed a motion to intervene seeking to add Sheet Metal Workers’ Pension Fund of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada (“Sheet Metal Workers”) as an additional named Plaintiff. The Ninth Circuit denied the motions, and on April 1, 2021, the case was remanded to the District Court. On April 19, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the remaining claims and an opposition to Sheet Metal Workers’ renewed motion to intervene. In June 2021, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims in the case for $33 million, subject to certain terms and conditions and subject to court approval. The proposed settlement is covered in full by insurance (refer to Note 13. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets). The district court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on November 22, 2021 and scheduled a fairness hearing for March 21, 2022.

On December 18, 2019, Cambridge Retirement System filed a putative class action complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Somerset County against the Company and certain current or former officers alleging violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., No. SOM-L-1701-19). Plaintiffs allege that the May 7, 2018 amended registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/Impax business combination was materially false and/or misleading because it failed to disclose that Amneal allegedly engaged in anticompetitive conduct to fix generic drug prices. Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 30, 2020 and in April 2021 filed a second amended complaint including similar allegations with regard to a November 2017 registration statement and prospectus issued in connection with the Amneal/ Impax business combination. The Company’s motion to dismiss and Plaintiff’s motion for class certification are currently pending. In February 2022, the parties reached a tentative agreement to settle the claims, subject to, among other things, the negotiation and court approval of a definitive settlement agreement.

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 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 (and therefore that Impax is liable to Teva for the amounts it paid to settle those litigations). Impax filed a Motion to Disqualify Teva’s counsel related to the matter, and on August 23, 2017, the trial court denied Impax's motion. Following the trial court’s order, Teva filed its complaint. On September 6, 2017, Impax appealed the trial court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On September 20, 2017, the Superior Court stayed the trial court action pending the outcome of Impax’s appeal. On November 2, 2018, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On November 16, 2018, Impax filed an application for reargument with the Superior Court, which was denied on December 28, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Superior Court remitted the record to the trial court. On February 15, 2019, Impax filed its answer with new matter to Teva’s complaint. On February 19, 2019, the trial court issued a revised case management order providing that, absent any extensions or amendments thereto, discovery was to have closed on July 1, 2019 and the case is expected to be ready for trial by February 3, 2020. On or about March 4, 2019, Teva filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Impax filed its answer and brief in opposition to Teva’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 25, 2019. On April 4, 2019, the trial court denied Teva’s motion. On April 16, 2019, Impax filed a motion to stay the proceedings and compel Teva to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to an Indemnification Release Agreement negotiated and executed by the parties in 2012. Teva’s opposition to the motion was filed on May 7, 2019. On June 11, 2019, the trial court denied Impax’s motion. On June 24, 2019, Impax noticed its intent to appeal to the Superior Court the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration, and moved both to stay the trial court proceedings pending that appeal and for an extension of case management deadlines. On July 12, 2019, the trial court denied both motions. On July 24, 2019, Impax moved the Superior Court to stay all trial court proceedings pending the outcome of Impax’s appeal of the trial court’s denial of the motion to compel arbitration and, on August 13, 2019, the Superior Court granted Impax’s motion. Impax filed its opening appellate brief

On July 7, 2017, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC received an administrative subpoena issued by the Long Island, NY District Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”) requesting information related to compliance with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements. On or about April 12, 2019 and May 28, 2019, the Company received grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (the “USAO”) relating to similar topics concerning the Company’s suspicious order monitoring program and its compliance with the Controlled Substances Act. The Company is cooperating with the USAO in responding to the subpoenas and has entered civil and criminal tolling agreements with the USAO through approximately May 12, 2022. It is not possible to determine the exact outcome of these investigations at this time.

The Company and its affiliates have been named as defendants, along with numerous other pharmaceutical manufacturers, wholesale distributors, and retail pharmacy chains, in In re Zantac/Ranitidine NDMA Litigation (MDL No. 2924), pending in the Southern District of Florida. Plaintiffs allege that defendants failed to disclose and/or concealed the alleged inherent presence of N-Nitrosodimethylamine (or “NDMA”) in brand-name Zantac® or generic ranitidine and the alleged associated risk of cancer. Consolidated groups of (a) personal injury plaintiffs, (b) economic loss/medical monitoring class action plaintiffs, and (c) third-party payor plaintiffs have each filed master complaints against brand and generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and repackagers of ranitidine-containing products. The Company or its affiliates have been named in the three master complaints and approximately 313 personal injury short form complaints. On December 31, 2020, the Court dismissed in full the three master complaints against the generic manufacturers, including the Company and its affiliates, with leave to file amended complaints on certain claims relating to manufacturing, storage and transportation. Plaintiffs filed amended complaints in February 2021, and Defendants filed various motions to dismiss the amended complaints in March 2021. On July 8, 2021, the MDL dismissed all claims against the generic drug manufacturers, including the Company and its affiliates, without leave to file further amended complaints. Plaintiffs have appealed the MDL court’s dismissal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has consolidated the appeals of the personal injury cases.

On June 18, 2020, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC was named in a lawsuit filed in New Mexico brought by the New Mexico Attorney General alleging claims of public nuisance, negligence, and violations of consumer protection laws against various brand and generic manufacturers and store-brand distributors of Zantac®/Ranitidine. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, as well as abatement, medical monitoring, restitution and injunctive relief. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on May 17, 2021, and filed a notice of supplemental authority based on the MDL court’s July 2021 dismissal order. The Court denied the motion on August 17, 2021. The Company filed a motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction on January 26, 2022. On November 12, 2020, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC was named in a public nuisance and consumer protection lawsuit filed in state court in Baltimore, Maryland, on behalf of the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore. Defendants removed the case to federal court and on April 1, 2021, the case was remanded to state court. On August 23, 2021, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted.

An economic loss complaint filed on behalf of consumers and third-party payors who purchased or paid or made reimbursements for metformin alleges that plaintiffs suffered economic losses in connection with their purchases or reimbursements due to the purported contamination. On May 20, 2021, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the economic loss complaint, and Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 21, 2021. Defendants again moved to dismiss, and the motion was fully briefed on October 18, 2021. Additionally, medical monitoring class action complaints were filed on behalf of consumers who consumed allegedly contaminated metformin allege “cellular damage, genetic harm, and/or are at an increased risk of developing cancer” and seek medical monitoring, including evaluation and treatment. These cases are currently stayed.

On March 29, 2021, a plaintiff filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama asserting claims against manufacturers of Valsartan, Losartan, and Metformin based on the alleged presence of nitrosamines in those products. The only allegations against Amneal concern Metformin. (Davis v. Camber Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:21-00254 (M.D. Ala.) (the “Davis Action”)). On May 5, 2021, the JPML transferred the Davis Action into the In re: Valsartan, Losartan, and Irbesartan Products Liability Litigation multi-district litigation for pretrial proceedings.

Amneal has been named as a defendant, along with Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Jazz”) and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Jazz’s Xyrem® (sodium oxybate), in several putative class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the generic manufacturers entered into anticompetitive agreements with Jazz in connection with settling patent litigation related to Xyrem®. Plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and penalties as well as equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On December 16, 2020, the JPML transferred the actions to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for consolidated pretrial proceedings consolidated as In re Xyrem (Sodium Oxybate) Antitrust Litigation (No. 5:20-md-02966-LHK). Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class complaint in March 2021, which Defendants moved to dismiss. On August 13, 2021, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion, dismissing the federal damages claims and a number of state-law claims, while permitting the remaining claims to proceed. Discovery is currently ongoing.

On August 5, 2021, Value Drug Company filed a purported class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. (“Takeda”) and numerous other manufacturers of generic versions of Takeda’s Colcrys® (colchicine), including Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, alleging that the generic manufacturers conspired with Takeda to restrict output of generic Colcrys in order to maintain higher prices, in violation of the antitrust laws. The Company, along with the other defendants, moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and on December 28, 2021 the Court granted the motion in full, with leave to amend. On January 18, 2022 Plaintiff filed its amended complaint, making substantively the same antitrust allegations, but alleging that the violations were effectuated by either a single overarching conspiracy or a series of bilateral conspiracies. The Company intends to move to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim.