COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2023
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Jubilant HollisterStier Manufacturing and Supply Agreement In connection with the Zyla Merger, the Company assumed a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “Jubilant HollisterStier 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 Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement, JHS is responsible for supplying a minimum of 75% of the Company’s annual requirements of SPRIX. The Company agreed to purchase a minimum number of batches of SPRIX per calendar year from JHS over the term of the Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement. Total commitments to JHS are approximately $1.5 million. Antares Supply Agreement In connection with the Otrexup acquisition, the Company entered into a supply agreement with Antares pursuant to which Antares will manufacture and supply the finished Otrexup products (the “Antares Supply Agreement”). Under the Antares Supply Agreement, the Company has agreed to annual minimum purchase obligations from Antares, which approximate $2.0 million annually. The Antares Supply Agreement has an initial term through December 2031 with renewal terms beyond. Hanmi Supply Agreement In connection with the Spectrum Merger, the Company assumed a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “Hanmi Agreement”) with Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Hanmi”) pursuant to which the Company engaged Hanmi to provide certain services related to the manufacture and supply of ROVELDON for the Company’s commercial use. The Company has agreed to purchase a minimum number of batches totaling approximately $19.1 million in 2024 and $3.8 million in 2025. 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 the Company’s 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 both December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the Company had a legal contingency accrual of approximately $3.2 million. The Company continues 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. Provisions for loss contingencies are recorded in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive (Loss) Income and the related accruals are recorded in Accrued liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets. Other than matters 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, cash flows 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to its former drug Glumetza®. The plaintiffs sought 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 in the same District Court. On July 30, 2020, Humana Inc. (“Humana”) also filed a complaint against the Company and several other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging similar claims related to Glumetza. The claims asserted by Humana in its federal case were ultimately withdrawn, and analogous claims were instead asserted by Humana in an action it filed in the California Superior Court of Alameda on February 8, 2021, and subsequently amended in September 2021. Additionally, on April 5, 2022, Health Care Service Corporation (“HCSC”) filed a complaint against the Company and the same other defendants in the California Superior Court of Alameda alleging similar claims related to Glumetza. 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 February 3, 2022, the District Court issued its final order approving a settlement of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs’ claims against the Company in return for $3.85 million. With respect to the California state court lawsuits, on November 24, 2021, the state court granted in part and denied in part a demurrer by the defendants in the Humana action. That case was consolidated in November 2022 with the HCSC action for pre-trial and trial purposes. On July 5, 2023, the state court denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the defendants in the Humana action. These California state cases are now in the midst of discovery, and trial is scheduled for December 2024. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in the consolidated California state court lawsuits. A liability for this matter 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, 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 sought 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 has also received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General in May 2023, pursuant to which the New York Attorney General is seeking information concerning the sales and marketing of opioid products (Lazanda, NUCYNTA, NUCYNTA ER, and OXAYDO) by Assertio Therapeutics and Zyla. The Company also from time to time receives and responds to subpoenas from governmental authorities related to investigations primarily focused on third parties, including healthcare practitioners. The Company is cooperating with the foregoing governmental investigations and inquiries. In July 2022, the Company became aware that the DOJ issued a press release stating that it had settled claims against a physician whom the DOJ alleged had received payments for paid speaking and consulting work from two pharmaceutical companies, including Depomed, Inc. (“Depomed,” now known as Assertio Therapeutics), in exchange for prescribing certain of the companies’ respective products. As part of the settlement, the physician did not admit liability for such claims and the press release stated that there has been no determination of any liability for such claims. The Company denies any wrongdoing and disputes the DOJ’s characterization of the payments from Depomed. Multidistrict and Other Federal 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. Assertio Holdings has also been named in six such cases. In April 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order stating that it would no longer transfer new opioid cases to the MDL Court. Since that time, Assertio Therapeutics has been named in lawsuits pending in federal courts outside of the MDL Court (in Georgia and New York). Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named, and plaintiffs may also seek leave to add the Company to lawsuits already on file in the MDL Court. Plaintiffs in the pending federal cases involving Assertio Therapeutics or Assertio Holdings 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. Assertio Therapeutics and Assertio Holdings intend to defend themselves vigorously in these matters. State Opioid Litigation Related to the federal cases 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 Delaware, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Assertio Holdings is named as a defendant in one of these cases in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. In the pending cases involving Assertio Therapeutics or Assertio Holdings, plaintiffs are asserting state common law and statutory claims against the defendants, and the majority of those cases are 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 or Assertio Holdings has been served are generally each at an early stage of proceedings. Assertio Therapeutics and Assertio Holdings intend to defend themselves vigorously in these matters. Insurance Litigation On January 15, 2019, Assertio Therapeutics 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 was Assertio Therapeutics’ primary product liability insurer. Navigators was seeking declaratory judgment that opioid litigation claims noticed by Assertio Therapeutics (as further described above under “Multidistrict and Other Federal Opioid Litigation” and “State Opioid Litigation”) are not covered by Assertio Therapeutics’ life sciences liability policies with Navigators. On February 3, 2021, Assertio Therapeutics entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Navigators to resolve the declaratory judgment action and Assertio Therapeutics’ counterclaims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties settled and the coverage action was dismissed without prejudice. During the first quarter of 2021, Assertio Therapeutics received $5.0 million in insurance reimbursement for previous opioid-related spend, which was recognized within Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive (Loss) Income for the year ended December 31, 2021. On July 16, 2021, Assertio Therapeutics 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 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-06642). Assertio Therapeutics was seeking a declaratory judgment that Newline has a duty to defend Assertio Therapeutics or, alternatively, to reimburse Assertio Therapeutics’ attorneys’ fees and other defense costs for opioid litigation claims noticed by Assertio Therapeutics. On May 18, 2022, Assertio Therapeutics entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Newline to resolve Assertio Therapeutics’ declaratory judgment action. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties settled and the coverage action was dismissed with prejudice. During the second quarter of 2022, Assertio Therapeutics received $2.0 million in insurance reimbursement for previous opioid-related spend, which was recognized within Selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive (Loss) Income for the year ended December 31, 2022. On April 1, 2022, Assertio Therapeutics filed a complaint for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against its former insurance broker, Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. (“Woodruff”), in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. 22CV009380). Assertio Therapeutics is seeking to recover its damages caused by Woodruff’s negligence and breaches of its fiduciary duties in connection with negotiating and procuring products liability insurance coverage for Assertio Therapeutics. The parties are in discovery. Trial is scheduled for March 2025. Stockholder Actions Shapiro v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169. On January 5, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the likely impact of INDOCIN sales and the Spectrum Merger on Assertio’s profitability in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). As of the March 5, 2024 deadline, seven individuals and entities had filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Edwards v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2024-0151. On February 19, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that certain former officers and directors of Spectrum breached their fiduciary duties in connection the Spectrum Merger, and that Guggenheim Securities LLC and Assertio aided and abetted such fiduciary duty breaches. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Luo v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:21-cv-01612. On August 31, 2021, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers and directors made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about Spectrum’s business and the prospects of approval for its Biologic License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA for eflapegrastim (ROLVEDON) in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 1, 2021, four individuals and one entity filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of counsel. On July 28, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for the putative class. On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging, inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and adding allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of, clinical trial data and market need for poziotinib during a Class Period of March 7, 2018 to August 5, 2021. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the Court. On November 30, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of February 27, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and issued an order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice to the lead plaintiff’s ability to replead their claims. The lead plaintiff’s deadline to file a further amended complaint is March 29, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) (the “New York Action”). Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits were subsequently filed by Spectrum shareholders against Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three New York lawsuits allege that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers made false or misleading statements about, inter alia, the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for poziotinib in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek remedies including damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the Court. On February 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the three New York lawsuits. On March 21, 2023, the Court entered an order designating Steven Christiansen as the lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Christiansen filed an amended consolidated complaint in the New York Action under the caption Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., on May 30, 2023, alleging a Class Period between March 17, 2022 and September 2022. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated New York Action on July 25, 2023, which was fully briefed as of October 19, 2023. On January 23, 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part as to five of the challenged statements but denied the motion to dismiss as to two specific statements. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on March 8, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Csaba v. Turgeon, et. al, (filed December 15, 2021 in the U.S. District Court District of Nevada); Shumacher v. Turgeon, et. al, (filed March 15, 2022 in the U.S. District Court District of Nevada); Johnson v. Turgeon, et. al, (filed March 29, 2022 in the U.S. District Court District of Nevada); Raul v. Turgeon, et. al, (filed April 28, 2022 in the U.S. District Court District of Delaware); and Albayrak v. Turgeon, et. al, (filed June 9, 2022 in the U.S. District Court District of Nevada). These putative stockholder derivative actions were filed against Spectrum (as a nominal defendant), certain of Spectrum’s former executive officers and directors. The stockholder derivative complaints allege, inter alia, that certain of Spectrum’s former executive officers are liable to Spectrum, pursuant to Section 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act for contribution and indemnification, if they are deemed (in the Luo class action), to have made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about Spectrum’s business and the prospects of approval for its BLA to the FDA for eflapegrastim. The complaints generally but not uniformly further allege that certain of Spectrum’s former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties, and certain of Spectrum’s former directors negligently violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, by allegedly causing such false or misleading statements to be issued and/or failing to disclose material facts about Spectrum’s business and the prospects of approval for its BLA to the FDA for eflapegrastim. The allegations state that as a result of the violations, certain of Spectrum’s former executive officers and directors committed acts of gross mismanagement, abuse of control, or were unjustly enriched. The plaintiffs generally seek corporate reforms, damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The parties have agreed to stay these derivative actions until there is a decision in the Luo Nevada securities class action either denying a motion to dismiss in whole or in part, or dismissing that securities class action with prejudice.

In connection with the Zyla Merger, the Company assumed a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “Jubilant HollisterStier 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 Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement, JHS is responsible for supplying a minimum of 75% of the Company’s annual requirements of SPRIX. The Company agreed to purchase a minimum number of batches of SPRIX per calendar year from JHS over the term of the Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement. Total commitments to JHS are approximately $1.5 million.

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 the Company’s 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 both December 31, 2023 and December 31, 2022, the Company had a legal contingency accrual of approximately $3.2 million. The Company continues 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. Provisions for loss contingencies are recorded in Selling, general and administrative expense in the Company’s Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive (Loss) Income and the related accruals are recorded in Accrued liabilities in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheets.

Other than matters 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, cash flows 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to its former drug Glumetza®. The plaintiffs sought 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 in the same District Court.

On July 30, 2020, Humana Inc. (“Humana”) also filed a complaint against the Company and several other defendants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging similar claims related to Glumetza. The claims asserted by Humana in its federal case were ultimately withdrawn, and analogous claims were instead asserted by Humana in an action it filed in the California Superior Court of Alameda on February 8, 2021, and subsequently amended in September 2021. Additionally, on April 5, 2022, Health Care Service Corporation (“HCSC”) filed a complaint against the Company and the same other defendants in the California Superior Court of Alameda alleging similar claims related to Glumetza.

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

With respect to the California state court lawsuits, on November 24, 2021, the state court granted in part and denied in part a demurrer by the defendants in the Humana action. That case was consolidated in November 2022 with the HCSC action for pre-trial and trial purposes. On July 5, 2023, the state court denied a motion for judgment on the pleadings filed by the defendants in the Humana action. These California state cases are now in the midst of discovery, and trial is scheduled for December 2024.

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, 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 sought 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 has also received a subpoena from the New York Attorney General in May 2023, pursuant to which the New York Attorney General is seeking information concerning the sales and marketing of opioid products (Lazanda, NUCYNTA, NUCYNTA ER, and OXAYDO) by Assertio Therapeutics and Zyla. The Company also from time to time receives and responds to subpoenas from governmental authorities related to investigations primarily focused on third parties, including healthcare practitioners. The Company is cooperating with the foregoing governmental investigations and inquiries.

In July 2022, the Company became aware that the DOJ issued a press release stating that it had settled claims against a physician whom the DOJ alleged had received payments for paid speaking and consulting work from two pharmaceutical companies, including Depomed, Inc. (“Depomed,” now known as Assertio Therapeutics), in exchange for prescribing certain of the companies’ respective products. As part of the settlement, the physician did not admit liability for such claims and the press release stated that there has been no determination of any liability for such claims. The Company denies any wrongdoing and disputes the DOJ’s characterization of the payments from Depomed.

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. Assertio Holdings has also been named in six such cases. In April 2022, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order stating that it would no longer transfer new opioid cases to the MDL Court. Since that time, Assertio Therapeutics has been named in lawsuits pending in federal courts outside of the MDL Court (in Georgia and New York). Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named, and plaintiffs may also seek leave to add the Company to lawsuits already on file in the MDL Court. Plaintiffs in the pending federal cases involving Assertio Therapeutics or Assertio Holdings 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. Assertio Therapeutics and Assertio Holdings intend to defend themselves vigorously in these matters.

Related to the federal cases 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 Delaware, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah. Assertio Holdings is named as a defendant in one of these cases in Pennsylvania. Plaintiffs may file additional lawsuits in which the Company may be named. In the pending cases involving Assertio Therapeutics or Assertio Holdings, plaintiffs are asserting state common law and statutory claims against the defendants, and the majority of those cases are 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 or Assertio Holdings has been served are generally each at an early stage of proceedings. Assertio Therapeutics and Assertio Holdings intend to defend themselves vigorously in these matters.

On January 15, 2019, Assertio Therapeutics 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 was Assertio Therapeutics’ primary product liability insurer. Navigators was seeking declaratory judgment that opioid litigation claims noticed by Assertio Therapeutics (as further described above under “Multidistrict and Other Federal Opioid Litigation” and “State Opioid Litigation”) are not covered by Assertio Therapeutics’ life sciences liability policies with Navigators. On February 3, 2021, Assertio Therapeutics entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Navigators to resolve the declaratory judgment action and Assertio Therapeutics’ counterclaims. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties settled and the coverage action was dismissed without prejudice.

On July 16, 2021, Assertio Therapeutics 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 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-06642). Assertio Therapeutics was seeking a declaratory judgment that Newline has a duty to defend Assertio Therapeutics or, alternatively, to reimburse Assertio Therapeutics’ attorneys’ fees and other defense costs for opioid litigation claims noticed by Assertio Therapeutics. On May 18, 2022, Assertio Therapeutics entered into a Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release with Newline to resolve Assertio Therapeutics’ declaratory judgment action. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the parties settled and the coverage action was dismissed with prejudice.

On April 1, 2022, Assertio Therapeutics filed a complaint for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty against its former insurance broker, Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. (“Woodruff”), in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (Case No. 22CV009380). Assertio Therapeutics is seeking to recover its damages caused by Woodruff’s negligence and breaches of its fiduciary duties in connection with negotiating and procuring products liability insurance coverage for Assertio Therapeutics. The parties are in discovery. Trial is scheduled for March 2025.

Shapiro v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169. On January 5, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the likely impact of INDOCIN sales and the Spectrum Merger on Assertio’s profitability in violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). As of the March 5, 2024 deadline, seven individuals and entities had filed motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Edwards v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2024-0151. On February 19, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that certain former officers and directors of Spectrum breached their fiduciary duties in connection the Spectrum Merger, and that Guggenheim Securities LLC and Assertio aided and abetted such fiduciary duty breaches. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Luo v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:21-cv-01612. On August 31, 2021, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers and directors made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about Spectrum’s business and the prospects of approval for its Biologic License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA for eflapegrastim (ROLVEDON) in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 1, 2021, four individuals and one entity filed competing motions to be appointed lead plaintiff and for approval of counsel. On July 28, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for the putative class. On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging, inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and adding allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of, clinical trial data and market need for poziotinib during a Class Period of March 7, 2018 to August 5, 2021. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the Court. On November 30, 2022, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of February 27, 2023. On February 6, 2024, the Court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss and issued an order dismissing the lawsuit without prejudice to the lead plaintiff’s ability to replead their claims. The lead plaintiff’s deadline to file a further amended complaint is March 29, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York) (the “New York Action”). Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits were subsequently filed by Spectrum shareholders against Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three New York lawsuits allege that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers made false or misleading statements about, inter alia, the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for poziotinib in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek remedies including damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the Court. On February 15, 2023, the Court consolidated the three New York lawsuits. On March 21, 2023, the Court entered an order designating Steven Christiansen as the lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Christiansen filed an amended consolidated complaint in the New York Action under the caption Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., on May 30, 2023, alleging a Class Period between March 17, 2022 and September 2022. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated New York Action on July 25, 2023, which was fully briefed as of October 19, 2023. On January 23, 2024, the Court granted the motion to dismiss in part as to five of the challenged statements but denied the motion to dismiss as to two specific statements. The Company filed its answer to the complaint on March 8, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter.

District of Delaware); and Albayrak v. Turgeon, et. al, (filed June 9, 2022 in the U.S. District Court District of Nevada). These putative stockholder derivative actions were filed against Spectrum (as a nominal defendant), certain of Spectrum’s former executive officers and directors. The stockholder derivative complaints allege, inter alia, that certain of Spectrum’s former executive officers are liable to Spectrum, pursuant to Section 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act for contribution and indemnification, if they are deemed (in the Luo class action), to have made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about Spectrum’s business and the prospects of approval for its BLA to the FDA for eflapegrastim. The complaints generally but not uniformly further allege that certain of Spectrum’s former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties, and certain of Spectrum’s former directors negligently violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, by allegedly causing such false or misleading statements to be issued and/or failing to disclose material facts about Spectrum’s business and the prospects of approval for its BLA to the FDA for eflapegrastim. The allegations state that as a result of the violations, certain of Spectrum’s former executive officers and directors committed acts of gross mismanagement, abuse of control, or were unjustly enriched. The plaintiffs generally seek corporate reforms, damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. The parties have agreed to stay these derivative actions until there is a decision in the Luo Nevada securities class action either denying a motion to dismiss in whole or in part, or dismissing that securities class action with prejudice.