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 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 15. 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 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 is also subject to legal proceedings that are not set forth below. While the Company believes it has meritorious claims and/or defenses to the matters described below (and intends to vigorously prosecute and defend them), the nature and cost of litigation is unpredictable, and an unfavorable 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. Any such claims, proceedings, investigations or litigation, regardless of the merits, might result in substantial costs to defend or settle, borrowings under our debt agreements, restrictions on product use or sales, or otherwise injure our business. The ultimate resolution of any or all claims, legal proceedings or investigations are inherently uncertain and difficult to predict, could differ materially from our estimates and could 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. 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. An insurance recovery, if any, is recorded in the period in which it is probable the recovery will be realized.


Matter	June 30, 2022		December 31, 2021
Opana ER® Antitrust Litigation(1)	$	215,000	$	—
Securities Class Action - Fleming v. Impax(1)	33,000		33,000
Securities Class Action - Cambridge Retirement System v. Amneal(1)	25,000		25,000
Galeas vs. Amneal	1,200
Other (2)	1,138		—
Current portion of liabilities for legal matters	$	275,338	$	58,000

Opana ER® Antitrust Litigation	$	50,000	$	—
Imputed interest	(2,082)
Accrued interest	90		—
Long-term portion of liabilities for legal matters (included in other long-term liabilities)	$	48,008	$	—

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 the 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 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 appealed the order (the “Mylan Appeal”) to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the “Federal Circuit”). On September 22, 2020, the D. Del. court entered judgment in favor of the defendants (including Amneal), adopting the finding of invalidity made by the N.D. W. Va. court. Biogen appealed the D. Del. Order (“the Amneal Consolidated Appeal”).

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, which the District Court granted on March 24, 2022. The FTC appealed the District Court’s decision in May 2022, which appeal remains 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.

In June 2022, Impax entered into a preliminary settlement agreement with the class of direct purchasers and the individual complainants that, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the resolution of substantially all the direct purchasers’ and individual complainants’ underlying claims and lawsuits in the MDL. In addition, subsequently Impax entered into a separate preliminary settlement agreement with the class of indirect purchasers that, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the resolution of substantially all the indirect purchasers’ underlying claims and lawsuits in the MDL. The preliminary settlement agreements are referred to herein collectively as the “Preliminary Settlement Agreements,” and the direct purchaser plaintiffs, indirect purchaser plaintiffs, and individual complainants are referred to herein collectively as “the Plaintiffs.”

Impax, the Company or its subsidiaries, and are subject to a number of other conditions including, with respect to the Preliminary Settlement Agreements between Impax and the purported classes of (i) direct purchaser plaintiffs and (ii) indirect purchaser plaintiffs, court approval. Upon satisfaction of the relevant pre-conditions, including but not limited to court approval of the final settlement agreements, substantially all of the claims and lawsuits in the litigation will have been resolved. During the three and six months ended June 30, 2022, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $262.8 million associated with the Preliminary Settlement Agreements. Imputed interest of $2.2 million will be recognized to interest expense during the payment period.

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. Plaintiff seeks, among other things, unspecified monetary damages, and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiff’s 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 and 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 plaintiff’s claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiff informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. In June 2019, the Company reached a settlement with plaintiff, 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 Company anticipates a final determination regarding approval to be made after a trial as to the plaintiff’s claims against the non-settling parties. Trial is scheduled to begin in October 2022. 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.

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. On March 30, 2022, the State of Alabama voluntarily dismissed all of its claims in the May 10, 2019 and June 10, 2020 actions against all defendants, including the Company, without prejudice. 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 involving the Company. No final scheduling order has yet been issued for this matter.

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 915 cases in the MDL in which the Company or its affiliates have been named as defendants. The Company also is named in approximately 119 state court cases pending in eleven states. The Company has filed motions to dismiss in many of these cases. No firm trial dates have been set except in Alabama (July 24, 2023) and in West Virginia (April 3, 2023). The Company will not be involved in the September 2022 trial in New Mexico previously reported as a result of the tentative settlement the Company reached with the New Mexico Attorney General in May 2022 to resolve the New Mexico Attorney General’s claims against the Company. The Company anticipates a final determination regarding approval to be made following a trial as to the plaintiff’s claims against the non-settling defendants.

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 June 2021, Plaintiffs (New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund, and Sheet Metal Workers’ Pension Fund of Southern California, Arizona and Nevada, who had filed various motions to intervene as a plaintiff in the case) and defendants reached a tentative agreement to settle all claims in the case for $33.0 million, subject to certain terms and conditions and subject to court approval. The proposed settlement is covered in full by insurance (refer to Note 17. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets for amounts deposited into a settlement escrow account). The district court entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on November 22, 2021, and held a fairness hearing on March 31, 2022. On July 15, 2022, the district court entered an order granting final approval of the settlement. On July 21, 2022, a stipulated final judgment was entered, effectively terminating this matter before the district court.

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 regarding 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 March 28, 2022, the parties executed a settlement agreement for $25.0 million that remains subject to, among other things, final court approval. On April 29, 2022, the court preliminarily approved the settlement. A hearing on final approval of the settlement agreement is set for August 15, 2022. For the three and six months ended June 30, 2022, the Company recorded insurance recoveries of $11.5 million and $15.5 million, respectively, related to this case (refer to Note 17. Prepaid Expenses and Other Current Assets for amounts deposited into a settlement escrow account).

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 amended tolling agreements with the USAO through approximately November 14, 2022. It is not currently possible to determine the exact outcome of these investigations.

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 316 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, which remains pending. 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 twenty-five other defendants, including brand-name manufacturers, generic manufacturers, and one Pennsylvania-based pharmacy. The Complaint tracks the dismissed master personal injury complaint from the MDL and was removed and subsequently transferred to the MDL on November 9, 2021. The case was remanded to Pennsylvania state court on April 22, 2022. The Company filed preliminary objections on May 18, 2022, which remain pending.

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 on March 30, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ second motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 6, 2022. Defendants again moved to dismiss on June 3, 2022, and briefing is ongoing. Initial discovery has begun. Additionally, medical monitoring class action complaints were filed on behalf of consumers who

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 moved to dismiss the complaint on March 3, 2022, and on March 31, 2022, one plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Amneal moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June 1, 2022, and briefing is ongoing.

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 Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion, dismissing the federal damages claims and several 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 moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. On March 30, 2022, the Court granted in part and denied in party defendants’ motion, dismissing the newly pled bilateral conspiracy claims but allowing the revised overarching conspiracy claim to proceed against all defendants. Discovery is currently ongoing.

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. In March 2022, the parties reached an agreement to settle the claims for $1.2 million, subject to, among other things, court approval of the contemplated settlement agreement. The parties filed a motion to approve the settlement agreement on July 13, 2022. A hearing on final approval of the settlement agreement is expected to be scheduled within the next 6-8 weeks. The Company recorded a $1.2 million charge associated with this matter for the six months ended June 30, 2022.

On March 22, 2022, two purported Amneal stockholders filed a stockholder derivative lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Kashiv and certain members of the Company’s Board of Directors. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The suit alleges that the Company’s January 2021 acquisition of a 98% interest in KSP, then a wholly owned subsidiary of Kashiv, was unfair to the Company, that the defendant Directors breached fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith in connection with the transaction, and that the transaction unjustly enriched Kashiv and certain of the defendants