Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings

Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings 

To date, thirteen 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., regarding the pricing of generic econazole nitrate cream ("econazole"). 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 class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for econazole during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. 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. On October 16, 2018 the court dismissed the class plaintiffs' claims against the Company with leave to replead. On December 21, 2018 the class plaintiffs filed amended complaints, which the Company moved to dismiss on February 21, 2019. This motion remains pending.

Three "opt-out" antitrust lawsuits have additionally been filed against the Company by Humana Inc.; The Kroger Co. et al.; and United HealthCare Services, Inc., and consolidated into the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Each of the opt-out complaints names between thirty-six and forty-three defendants (including the Company) and involves allegations regarding the pricing of econazole along with between twenty-four and twenty-nine other drug products that were not manufactured or sold by the Company during the period at issue. The opt-out plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges for the drug products identified in the complaint during the alleged period of conspiracy, and two of the complaints also seek injunctive relief. A motion to dismiss the Humana Inc. and The Kroger Co., et al. opt-out complaints was filed on February 21, 2019. A motion to dismiss the United HealthCare Services, Inc. opt-out complaint has not yet been filed.

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. At this time, 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 three counter-claims 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 and for breaching the confidentiality provisions and exclusivity provisions of the parties' agreements.

On December 13, 2018, Valdepharm SA filed a lawsuit alleging that the Company breached contracts regarding two drug products that the Company had sought to have Valdepharm manufacture. On February 12, 2019 the Company answered the complaint and counterclaimed, alleging that Valdepharm breached the contracts by failing to perform its work in compliance with FDA regulations and current Good Manufacturing Practices. Each party seeks damages associated with the alleged breach and related claims. Due to the early stage of the case 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 the claims against Teligent are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against them.

On April 15, 2019, Mo-Kan Iron Workers Pension Fund, on behalf of itself and all other persons or entities, except defendants, who purchased Teligent common stock between May 2, 2017 and November 7, 2017, commenced a putative class action against the Company and its CEO, Jason Grenfell-Gardner, alleging violations of the securities laws. The complaint alleges that the defendants made materially misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational and compliance policies. The plaintiff has agreed to adjourn the response date until after the completion of the lead plaintiff appointment process under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Due to the early stage of the case, 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 the claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend against them.