COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Jubilant HollisterStier Manufacturing and Supply Agreement Pursuant to the Zyla Merger, the Company assumed a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Jubilant HollisterStier LLC (“JHS”) pursuant to which the Company engaged JHS to provide certain services related to the manufacture and supply of SPRIX for the Company’s commercial use. Under the Agreement, JHS will be responsible for supplying a minimum of 75% of the Company’s annual requirements of SPRIX through July 30, 2022. The Company has agreed to purchase a minimum number of batches of SPRIX per calendar year from JHS over the term of the Agreement. Total commitments to JHS are approximately $1.8 million through the period ending July 30, 2022 and are expected to be met. Cosette Pharmaceuticals Supply Agreement Pursuant to the Zyla Merger, the Company assumed a Collaborative License, Exclusive Manufacture and Global Supply Agreement with Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly G&W Laboratories, Inc.) (the “Supply Agreement”) for the manufacture and supply of INDOCIN Suppositories to Zyla for commercial distribution in the United States. On July 9, 2021, the Company and Cosette entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Supply Agreement, to among other things, extend the expiration date of the Supply Agreement from July 31, 2023 to July 9, 2028. The Company is obligated to purchase all of its requirements for INDOCIN Suppositories from Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and is required to meet minimum purchase requirements each calendar year during the extended term of the agreement. Total commitments to Cosette are approximately $6.3 million annually through the end of the contract term. Legal Matters General The Company is currently involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company recognizes a loss contingency provision in its financial statements when it concludes that a contingent liability is probable, and the amount thereof is estimable. Costs associated with our involvement in legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies are based on management’s best estimate of a loss based upon the status of the cases described below, assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of counsel and often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions including timing of related payments. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020 the Company had a legal contingency accrual of approximately $3.6 million and zero, respectively. The Company recognized a gain on contingency provision of $0.8 million and a loss on contingency provision of $10.6 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, respectively. The Company will continue to monitor each matter and adjust accruals as warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20- 25. For matters discussed below for which a loss is not probable, or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no liability has been recorded. Legal expenses are recorded in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and the related accruals are recorded in Accrued Liabilities in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other than matters that we have disclosed below, the Company may from time to time become party to actions, claims, suits, investigations or proceedings arising from the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims and other matters. The Company may also become party to further litigation in federal and state courts relating to opioid drugs. Although actions, claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the matters set forth below, the Company is not currently involved in any matters that the Company believes may have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. However, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of associated cost and diversion of management time. Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to our former drug Glumetza®. The named class representatives in the currently pending class actions include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City of Providence, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. These class representatives seek to represent a putative class of direct purchasers of Glumetza. In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc. (the “Retailer Plaintiffs”) filed substantially similar direct purchaser antitrust claims based on alleged assignments of claims from direct purchaser wholesalers. On December 23, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the actions. That motion was heard by the District Court on February 20, 2020. On March 5, 2020 the District Court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss. However, based on the order on the motion, claims previously filed by a putative class of end payor plaintiffs were voluntarily dismissed. On July 30, 2020, Humana Inc. also filed a complaint against the Company in federal court in the Northern District of California alleging similar claims related to Glumetza®. On February 2, 2021, the District Court dismissed Humana’s state-law antitrust claims, but permitted Humana to proceed on its federal direct purchaser claims. On February 8, 2021, Humana refiled its state-law claims against the Company and several other defendants in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda. On September 20, 2021, Humana voluntarily dismissed all of its remaining claims in the federal action and, pursuant to a stipulation with the defendants, will instead pursue its direct purchaser claims as part of the California state court lawsuit. These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License Agreement (the Settlement) that the Company, Santarus, Inc. (Santarus) and Lupin Limited (Lupin) entered into in February 2012 that resolved patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it allegedly included a “reverse payment” that caused Lupin to delay its entry in the market with a generic version of Glumetza. The alleged “reverse payment” is an alleged commitment on the part of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza for a certain period. The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the Company and its co-defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus), are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version of Glumetza® due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys’ fees and costs. On September 14, 2021, the Retailer Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims against the Company pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Company in return for $3.15 million. On September 22, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement reached by the Company to settle the direct purchaser class plaintiffs’ claims in return for $3.85 million, subject to final court approval. As part of the settlements, the Company admitted no liability as to the claims against it and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. With respect to the Humana lawsuit that is continuing in California state court, the Company and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims in the action on April 16, 2021. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. A liability for this matter has been recorded in the financial statements. Securities Class Action Lawsuit and Related Matters On August 23, 2017, the Company, two individuals who formerly served as its chief executive officer and president, and its former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the District Court). The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational policies and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August 7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019. The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 17, 2019, and the District Court granted that motion with prejudice on March 11, 2020. On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties completed their briefing of the appeal on December 14, 2020. On March 1, 2021, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the appeal pending settlement discussions. On July 30, 2021, the Company reached an agreement to settle the matter subject to District Court approval. On August 13, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the District Court. In addition, five shareholder derivative actions were filed on behalf of the Company against its officers and directors for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violations of the federal securities laws. The claims arise out of the same factual allegations as the purported federal securities class action described above. The first derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on September 29, 2017 (Singh v. Higgins et al., RG17877280). The second and third actions were filed in the Northern District of California on November 10, 2017 (Solak v. Higgins et al., No. 3:17-cv-6546-JST) and November 15, 2017 (Ross v. Fogarty et al., No. 3:17-cv-6592- JST). The fourth action was filed in the District of Delaware on December 21, 2018 (Lutz v. Higgins et al, No. 18-2044-CFC). The fifth derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on January 28, 2019 (Youse v. Higgins et al, No. HG19004409). On December 7, 2017, the plaintiffs in Solak v. Higgins, et al. voluntarily dismissed the action. On July 12, 2019, the Singh and Youse actions were consolidated. All of the derivative actions were stayed pending the resolution of the class action, and the stays have been extended pending the resolution of the appeal. On July 30, 2021, the Company reached an agreement to settle these matters subject to court approval. On August 6, 2021, plaintiffs in the consolidated Singh/Youse derivative action filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. On October 19, 2021, the Superior Court held a hearing regarding the preliminary approval motion. A liability for these matters and the securities law class action described in the preceding paragraph has been recorded in the financial statements. Opioid-Related Request and Subpoenas As a result of the greater public awareness of the public health issue of opioid abuse, there has been increased scrutiny of, and investigation into, the commercial practices of opioid manufacturers generally by federal, state, and local regulatory and governmental agencies. In March 2017, the Company’s subsidiary Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. (Assertio Therapeutics) received a letter from then-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the then-Ranking Member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, requesting certain information regarding Assertio Therapeutics’ historical commercialization of opioid products. Assertio Therapeutics voluntarily furnished information responsive to Sen. McCaskill’s request. Since 2017, Assertio Therapeutics has received and responded to subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking documents and information regarding its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. Assertio Therapeutics has also received and responded to subpoenas or civil investigative demands focused on its historical promotion and sales of Lazanda, NUCYNTA, and NUCYNTA ER from various state attorneys general seeking documents and information regarding Assertio Therapeutics’ historical sales and marketing of opioid products. In addition, Assertio Therapeutics received and responded to a subpoena from the State of California Department of Insurance (CDI) seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of Lazanda. The CDI subpoena also seeks information on Gralise, a non-opioid product formerly in Assertio Therapeutics’ portfolio. In addition, Assertio Therapeutics received and responded to a subpoena from the New York Department of Financial Services seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. The Company also from time to time receives and complies with subpoenas from governmental authorities related to investigations primarily focused on third parties, including healthcare practitioners. Assertio Therapeutics is cooperating with the foregoing governmental investigations and inquiries. Multidistrict Opioid Litigation A number of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and other industry participants have been named in numerous lawsuits around the country brought by various groups of plaintiffs, including city and county governments, hospitals, individuals and others. In general, the lawsuits assert claims arising from defendants’ manufacturing, distributing, marketing and promoting of FDA-approved opioid drugs. The specific legal theories asserted vary from case to case, but the lawsuits generally include federal and/or state statutory claims, as well as claims arising under state common law. Plaintiffs seek various forms of damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys’ fees and costs. For such cases filed in or removed to federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order in December 2017, establishing a Multi-District Litigation court (MDL Court) in the Northern District of Ohio (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 1:17-MD-2804). Since that time, more than 2,000 such cases that were originally filed in U.S. District Courts, or removed to federal court from state court, have been filed in or transferred to the MDL Court. Assertio Therapeutics is currently involved in a subset of the lawsuits that have been filed in or transferred to the MDL Court. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. Plaintiffs in the pending federal cases involving the Company include individuals; county, municipal and other governmental entities; employee benefit plans, health insurance providers and other payors; hospitals, health clinics and other health care providers; Native American tribes; and non-profit organizations who assert, for themselves and in some cases for a putative class, federal and state statutory claims and state common law claims, such as conspiracy, nuisance, fraud, negligence, gross negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, deceptive trade practices, and products liability claims (defective design/failure to warn). In these cases, plaintiffs seek a variety of forms of relief, including actual damages to compensate for alleged personal injuries and for alleged past and future costs such as to provide care and services to persons with opioid-related addiction or related conditions, injunctive relief, including to prohibit alleged deceptive marketing practices and abate an alleged nuisance, establishment of a compensation fund, establishment of medical monitoring programs, disgorgement of profits, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. No trial date has been set in any of these lawsuits, which are at an early stage of proceedings. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. State Opioid Litigation Related to the cases in the MDL Court noted above, there have been hundreds of similar lawsuits filed in state courts around the country, in which various groups of plaintiffs assert opioid-drug related claims against similar groups of defendants. Assertio Therapeutics is currently named in a subset of those cases, including cases in Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which Assertio Therapeutics may be named. In the pending cases involving Assertio Therapeutics, plaintiffs are asserting state common law and statutory claims against the defendants similar in nature to the claims asserted in the MDL cases. Plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The state lawsuits in which Assertio Therapeutics has been served are generally each at an early stage of proceedings. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters. Insurance Litigation On January 15, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action filed by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (Navigators) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-255). Navigators is the Company’s primary product liability insurer. Navigators was seeking declaratory judgment that opioid litigation claims noticed by the Company (as further described above under “Multidistrict Opioid Litigation” and “State Opioid Litigation”) are not covered by the Company’s life sciences liability policies with Navigators. On February 3, 2021, the Company entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Navigators to resolve the declaratory judgment action and the Company’s counterclaims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties settled and the coverage action was dismissed without prejudice. During the first quarter of 2021, the Company received $5.0 million in insurance reimbursement for previous opioid-related spend, which was recognized within Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. On July 16, 2021, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory relief against one of its excess products liability insurers, Lloyd’s of London Newline Syndicate 1218 and related entities (Newline), in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. Newline removed the case to federal court, and it is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-06642). The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that Newline has a duty to defend the Company or, alternatively, to reimburse the Company’s attorneys’ fees and other defense costs for opioid litigation claims noticed by the Company. Discovery has not yet commenced, and the case is not yet set for trial. CAMBIA® ANDA Litigation On July 16, 2020, the Company and APR Applied Pharma Research SA (APR), received notice from Patrin Pharma Inc. (Patrin) advising that Patrin had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of CAMBIA® 50 mg prior to the expiration of U.S. patents in June 2026 as listed in the FDA “Orange Book” for CAMBIA (Orange Book Patents). The Orange Book Patents are licensed to the Company by APR. On August 27, 2020, the Company and APR filed a lawsuit against Patrin in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, seeking an injunction to prevent approval of the Patrin ANDA. The lawsuit alleges that Patrin has infringed the Orange Book Patents by filing an ANDA with a Paragraph IV Certification seeking approval from the FDA to market a generic version of CAMBIA prior to the expiration of the patents. The commencement of the patent infringement suit stays or bars the FDA from approving Patrin’s ANDA for 30 months or until an earlier district court decision that each of the patents is invalid or not infringed. On September 18, 2020, Patrin filed its answer including affirmative defenses and counterclaims. On October 9, 2020, the Company and APR filed an answer to Patrin’s counterclaims. On January 21, 2021, the court stayed all case deadlines pending settlement discussions between the parties. On March 8, 2021, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Patrin. On March 10, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ agreed motion for entry of Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction. This settlement concludes all ongoing ANDA litigation.

Pursuant to the Zyla Merger, the Company assumed a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Jubilant HollisterStier LLC (“JHS”) pursuant to which the Company engaged JHS to provide certain services related to the manufacture and supply of SPRIX for the Company’s commercial use. Under the Agreement, JHS will be responsible for supplying a minimum of 75% of the Company’s annual requirements of SPRIX through July 30, 2022. The Company has agreed to purchase a minimum number of batches of SPRIX per calendar year from JHS over the term of the Agreement. Total commitments to JHS are approximately $1.8 million through the period ending July 30, 2022 and are expected to be met.

Pursuant to the Zyla Merger, the Company assumed a Collaborative License, Exclusive Manufacture and Global Supply Agreement with Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly G&W Laboratories, Inc.) (the “Supply Agreement”) for the manufacture and supply of INDOCIN Suppositories to Zyla for commercial distribution in the United States. On July 9, 2021, the Company and Cosette entered into Amendment No. 3 to the Supply Agreement, to among other things, extend the expiration date of the Supply Agreement from July 31, 2023 to July 9, 2028. The Company is obligated to purchase all of its requirements for INDOCIN Suppositories from Cosette Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and is required to meet minimum purchase requirements each calendar year during the extended term of the agreement. Total commitments to Cosette are approximately $6.3 million annually through the end of the contract term.

The Company is currently involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company recognizes a loss contingency provision in its financial statements when it concludes that a contingent liability is probable, and the amount thereof is estimable. Costs associated with our involvement in legal proceedings are expensed as incurred. Amounts accrued for legal contingencies are based on management’s best estimate of a loss based upon the status of the cases described below, assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of counsel and often result from a complex series of judgments about future events and uncertainties that rely heavily on estimates and assumptions including timing of related payments. As of September 30, 2021 and December 31, 2020 the Company had a legal contingency accrual of approximately $3.6 million and zero, respectively. The Company recognized a gain on contingency provision of $0.8 million and a loss on contingency provision of $10.6 million in the three and nine months ended September 30, 2021, respectively. The Company will continue to monitor each matter and adjust accruals as warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20- 25. For matters discussed below for which a loss is not probable, or a probable loss cannot be reasonably estimated, no liability has been recorded. Legal expenses are recorded in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income and the related accruals are recorded in Accrued Liabilities in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Other than matters that we have disclosed below, the Company may from time to time become party to actions, claims, suits, investigations or proceedings arising from the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims and other matters. The Company may also become party to further litigation in federal and state courts relating to opioid drugs. Although actions, claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the matters set forth below, the Company is not currently involved in any matters that the Company believes may have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations or financial condition. However, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of associated cost and diversion of management time.

Antitrust class actions and related direct antitrust actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to our former drug Glumetza®. The named class representatives in the currently pending class actions include Meijer, Inc., Bi-Lo, LLC, Winn-Dixie Logistics, Inc., City of Providence, and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. These class representatives seek to represent a putative class of direct purchasers of Glumetza. In addition, several retailers, including CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Rite Aid Corporation, Walgreen Co., the Kroger Co., the Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B, L.P., and Hy-Vee, Inc. (the “Retailer Plaintiffs”) filed substantially similar direct purchaser antitrust

On July 30, 2020, Humana Inc. also filed a complaint against the Company in federal court in the Northern District of California alleging similar claims related to Glumetza®. On February 2, 2021, the District Court dismissed Humana’s state-law antitrust claims, but permitted Humana to proceed on its federal direct purchaser claims. On February 8, 2021, Humana refiled its state-law claims against the Company and several other defendants in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda. On September 20, 2021, Humana voluntarily dismissed all of its remaining claims in the federal action and, pursuant to a stipulation with the defendants, will instead pursue its direct purchaser claims as part of the California state court lawsuit.

These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License Agreement (the Settlement) that the Company, Santarus, Inc. (Santarus) and Lupin Limited (Lupin) entered into in February 2012 that resolved patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it allegedly included a “reverse payment” that caused Lupin to delay its entry in the market with a generic version of Glumetza. The alleged “reverse payment” is an alleged commitment on the part of the settling parties not to launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza for a certain period. The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the Company and its co-defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus), are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version of Glumetza® due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys’ fees and costs.

On September 14, 2021, the Retailer Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims against the Company pursuant to a settlement agreement with the Company in return for $3.15 million. On September 22, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved a settlement agreement reached by the Company to settle the direct purchaser class plaintiffs’ claims in return for $3.85 million, subject to final court approval. As part of the settlements, the Company admitted no liability as to the claims against it and denied all allegations of wrongdoing.

On August 23, 2017, the Company, two individuals who formerly served as its chief executive officer and president, and its former chief financial officer were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (the District Court). The action (Huang v. Depomed et al., No. 4:17-cv-4830-JST, N.D. Cal.) alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 relating to certain prior disclosures of the Company about its business, compliance, and operational policies and practices concerning the sales and marketing of its opioid products and contends that the conduct supporting the alleged violations affected the value of Company common stock and is seeking damages and other relief. In an amended complaint filed on February 6, 2018, the lead plaintiff (referred to in its pleadings as the Depomed Investor Group), which seeks to represent a class consisting of all purchasers of Company common stock between July 29, 2015 and August 7, 2017, asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on April 9, 2018. On March 18, 2019, the District Court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice, and the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on May 2, 2019. The second amended complaint asserted the same claims arising out of the same and similar disclosures against the Company and the same individuals as were involved in the original complaint. The Company and the individuals filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on June 17, 2019, and the District Court granted that motion with prejudice on March 11, 2020. On April 9, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The parties completed their briefing of the appeal on December 14, 2020. On March 1, 2021, the court granted the parties’ joint motion to stay the appeal pending settlement discussions. On July 30, 2021, the Company reached an agreement to settle the matter subject to District Court approval. On August 13, 2021, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the District Court.

class action described above. The first derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on September 29, 2017 (Singh v. Higgins et al., RG17877280). The second and third actions were filed in the Northern District of California on November 10, 2017 (Solak v. Higgins et al., No. 3:17-cv-6546-JST) and November 15, 2017 (Ross v. Fogarty et al., No. 3:17-cv-6592- JST). The fourth action was filed in the District of Delaware on December 21, 2018 (Lutz v. Higgins et al, No. 18-2044-CFC). The fifth derivative action was filed in the Superior Court of California, Alameda County on January 28, 2019 (Youse v. Higgins et al, No. HG19004409). On December 7, 2017, the plaintiffs in Solak v. Higgins, et al. voluntarily dismissed the action. On July 12, 2019, the Singh and Youse actions were consolidated. All of the derivative actions were stayed pending the resolution of the class action, and the stays have been extended pending the resolution of the appeal. On July 30, 2021, the Company reached an agreement to settle these matters subject to court approval. On August 6, 2021, plaintiffs in the consolidated Singh/Youse derivative action filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement with the Superior Court of California, Alameda County. On October 19, 2021, the Superior Court held a hearing regarding the preliminary approval motion. A liability for these matters and the securities law class action described in the preceding paragraph has been recorded in the financial statements.

As a result of the greater public awareness of the public health issue of opioid abuse, there has been increased scrutiny of, and investigation into, the commercial practices of opioid manufacturers generally by federal, state, and local regulatory and governmental agencies. In March 2017, the Company’s subsidiary Assertio Therapeutics, Inc. (Assertio Therapeutics) received a letter from then-Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-MO), the then-Ranking Member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, requesting certain information regarding Assertio Therapeutics’ historical commercialization of opioid products. Assertio Therapeutics voluntarily furnished information responsive to Sen. McCaskill’s request. Since 2017, Assertio Therapeutics has received and responded to subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking documents and information regarding its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. Assertio Therapeutics has also received and responded to subpoenas or civil investigative demands focused on its historical promotion and sales of Lazanda, NUCYNTA, and NUCYNTA ER from various state attorneys general seeking documents and information regarding Assertio Therapeutics’ historical sales and marketing of opioid products. In addition, Assertio Therapeutics received and responded to a subpoena from the State of California Department of Insurance (CDI) seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of Lazanda. The CDI subpoena also seeks information on Gralise, a non-opioid product formerly in Assertio Therapeutics’ portfolio. In addition, Assertio Therapeutics received and responded to a subpoena from the New York Department of Financial Services seeking information relating to its historical sales and marketing of opioid products. The Company also from time to time receives and complies with subpoenas from governmental authorities related to investigations primarily focused on third parties, including healthcare practitioners. Assertio Therapeutics is cooperating with the foregoing governmental investigations and inquiries.

A number of pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors and other industry participants have been named in numerous lawsuits around the country brought by various groups of plaintiffs, including city and county governments, hospitals, individuals and others. In general, the lawsuits assert claims arising from defendants’ manufacturing, distributing, marketing and promoting of FDA-approved opioid drugs. The specific legal theories asserted vary from case to case, but the lawsuits generally include federal and/or state statutory claims, as well as claims arising under state common law. Plaintiffs seek various forms of damages, injunctive and other relief and attorneys’ fees and costs.

For such cases filed in or removed to federal court, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order in December 2017, establishing a Multi-District Litigation court (MDL Court) in the Northern District of Ohio (In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 1:17-MD-2804). Since that time, more than 2,000 such cases that were originally filed in U.S. District Courts, or removed to federal court from state court, have been filed in or transferred to the MDL Court. Assertio Therapeutics is currently involved in a subset of the lawsuits that have been filed in or transferred to the MDL Court. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. Plaintiffs in the pending federal cases involving the Company include individuals; county, municipal and other governmental entities; employee benefit plans, health insurance providers and other payors; hospitals, health clinics and other health care providers; Native American tribes; and non-profit organizations who assert, for themselves and in some cases for a putative class, federal and state statutory claims and state common law claims, such as conspiracy, nuisance, fraud, negligence, gross negligence, negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, deceptive trade practices, and products liability claims (defective design/failure to warn). In these cases, plaintiffs seek a variety of forms of relief, including actual damages to compensate for alleged personal injuries and for alleged past and future costs such as to provide care and services to persons with opioid-related addiction or related conditions, injunctive relief, including to prohibit alleged deceptive marketing practices and abate an alleged nuisance, establishment of a compensation fund, establishment of medical monitoring programs, disgorgement of profits, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. No trial date has been set in any of these lawsuits, which are at an early stage of proceedings. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

Related to the cases in the MDL Court noted above, there have been hundreds of similar lawsuits filed in state courts around the country, in which various groups of plaintiffs assert opioid-drug related claims against similar groups of defendants. Assertio Therapeutics is currently named in a subset of those cases, including cases in Missouri, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which Assertio Therapeutics may be named. In the pending cases involving Assertio Therapeutics, plaintiffs are asserting state common law and statutory claims against the defendants similar in nature to the claims asserted in the MDL cases. Plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, punitive and statutory treble damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The state lawsuits in which Assertio Therapeutics has been served are generally each at an early stage of proceedings. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in these matters.

On January 15, 2019, the Company was named as a defendant in a declaratory judgment action filed by Navigators Specialty Insurance Company (Navigators) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:19-cv-255). Navigators is the Company’s primary product liability insurer. Navigators was seeking declaratory judgment that opioid litigation claims noticed by the Company (as further described above under “Multidistrict Opioid Litigation” and “State Opioid Litigation”) are not covered by the Company’s life sciences liability policies with Navigators. On February 3, 2021, the Company entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Navigators to resolve the declaratory judgment action and the Company’s counterclaims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties settled and the coverage action was dismissed without prejudice.

On July 16, 2021, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory relief against one of its excess products liability insurers, Lloyd’s of London Newline Syndicate 1218 and related entities (Newline), in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda. Newline removed the case to federal court, and it is currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-06642). The Company is seeking a declaratory judgment that Newline has a duty to defend the Company or, alternatively, to reimburse the Company’s attorneys’ fees and other defense costs for opioid litigation claims noticed by the Company. Discovery has not yet commenced, and the case is not yet set for trial.

On July 16, 2020, the Company and APR Applied Pharma Research SA (APR), received notice from Patrin Pharma Inc. (Patrin) advising that Patrin had filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) seeking to market a generic version of CAMBIA® 50 mg prior to the expiration of U.S. patents in June 2026 as listed in the FDA “Orange Book” for CAMBIA (Orange Book Patents). The Orange Book Patents are licensed to the Company by APR. On August 27, 2020, the Company and APR filed a lawsuit against Patrin in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, seeking an injunction to prevent approval of the Patrin ANDA. The lawsuit alleges that Patrin has infringed the Orange Book Patents by filing an ANDA with a Paragraph IV Certification seeking approval from the FDA to market a generic version of CAMBIA prior to the expiration of the patents. The commencement of the patent infringement suit stays or bars the FDA from approving Patrin’s ANDA for 30 months or until an earlier district court decision that each of the patents is invalid or not infringed. On September 18, 2020, Patrin filed its answer including affirmative defenses and counterclaims. On October 9, 2020, the Company and APR filed an answer to Patrin’s counterclaims. On January 21, 2021, the court stayed all case deadlines pending settlement discussions between the parties. On March 8, 2021, the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement with Patrin. On March 10, 2021, the Court granted the parties’ agreed motion for entry of Judgment and Order of Permanent Injunction. This settlement concludes all ongoing ANDA litigation.