Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings	Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings The Company is involved from time to time in claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In management's opinion, the Company has made adequate provision for potential liabilities, if any, arising from any such matters. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the costs and other effects of pending or future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in any such matters, and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and operating results. To date, twelve putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc. One “opt-out” action has additionally been filed against the Company along with thirty-four generic manufacturer co-defendants regarding the pricing of econazole nitrate cream along with twenty-nine additional drug products not manufactured or sold by the Company. All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter, and the class actions have been consolidated into three actions: the direct purchaser, end payer and indirect reseller actions. The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The opt-out plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by thirty-five generic manufacturers to fix prices for thirty drug products, including econazole nitrate cream, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for the thirty drug products identified in the complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. All of these cases are in their initial stages and motions to dismiss have been filed with respect to each of the three consolidated class actions. Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. On October 20, 2017, a Demand for Arbitration was filed with the American Arbitration Association by Stayma Consulting Services, Inc. (“Stayma”) against the Company regarding the Company’s development and manufacture for Stayma of two generic drug products, one a lotion and one a cream, containing 0.05% of the active pharmaceutical ingredient flurandrenolide. The Company developed the two products and Stayma purchased commercial quantities of each; however, Stayma alleges that the Company breached agreements between the parties by developing an additional and different generic drug product, an ointment, containing flurandrenolide, and failing to meet certain contractual requirements. Stayma seeks monetary damages. Due to the early stage of this matter, the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company believes this case is without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The Company filed a counter-claim against Stayma for its failure to pay several past due invoices of approximately $1.7 million relating to the development and commercial supply of the two subject products.

Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings

The Company is involved from time to time in claims which arise in the ordinary course of business. In management's opinion, the Company has made adequate provision for potential liabilities, if any, arising from any such matters. However, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the costs and other effects of pending or future litigation, governmental investigations, legal and administrative cases and proceedings (whether civil or criminal), settlements, judgments and investigations, claims and changes in any such matters, and developments or assertions by or against the Company relating to intellectual property rights and intellectual property licenses, could have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition and operating results.

To date, twelve putative class action antitrust lawsuits have been filed against the Company along with co-defendants, including Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. and Perrigo New York Inc. One “opt-out” action has additionally been filed against the Company along with thirty-four generic manufacturer co-defendants regarding the pricing of econazole nitrate cream along with twenty-nine additional drug products not manufactured or sold by the Company. All actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter, and the class actions have been consolidated into three actions: the direct purchaser, end payer and indirect reseller actions.

The class plaintiffs seek to represent nationwide or state classes consisting of persons who directly purchased, indirectly purchased, paid and/or reimbursed patients for the purchase of generic econazole from July 1, 2014 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease.

The opt-out plaintiffs allege a conspiracy by thirty-five generic manufacturers to fix prices for thirty drug products, including econazole nitrate cream, in violation of federal antitrust laws. The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged price overcharges for the thirty drug products identified in the complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and also seek injunctive relief against the defendants.

All of these cases are in their initial stages and motions to dismiss have been filed with respect to each of the three consolidated class actions. Due to the early stage of these cases, we are unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. We believe these cases are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against these claims.

On October 20, 2017, a Demand for Arbitration was filed with the American Arbitration Association by Stayma Consulting Services, Inc. (“Stayma”) against the Company regarding the Company’s development and manufacture for Stayma of two generic drug products, one a lotion and one a cream, containing 0.05% of the active pharmaceutical ingredient flurandrenolide. The Company developed the two products and Stayma purchased commercial quantities of each; however, Stayma alleges that the Company breached agreements between the parties by developing an additional and different generic drug product, an ointment, containing flurandrenolide, and failing to meet certain contractual requirements. Stayma seeks monetary damages. Due to the early stage of this matter, the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is either probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company believes this case is without merit, and the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. The Company filed a counter-claim against Stayma for its failure to pay several past due invoices of approximately $1.7 million relating to the development and commercial supply of the two subject products.