XML 33 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.21.1
Legal and U.S. Regulatory Proceedings
 3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2021
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 pharmaceuticals, including econazole nitrate. 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 pharmaceuticals from as early as July 1, 2009 until the time the defendants’ allegedly unlawful conduct ceased or will cease. The class plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges during the alleged period of conspiracy, and certain of the class plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief against the defendants. The actions have been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court, 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. On December 19, 2019 certain class plaintiffs filed a further complaint that included additional claims against the Company based on the Company’s sales of fluocinolone acetonide. On October 16, 2020 and October 21, 2020, class plaintiffs amended or moved to amend their complaints to add additional allegations, mooting the motion to dismiss.
“Opt-out” antitrust lawsuits have additionally been filed against the Company by various plaintiffs, including Humana Inc.; The Kroger Co. et al.; United HealthCare Services, Inc.; Molina Healthcare, Inc.; MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC; Health Care Service Corp.; Harris County, Texas; Rite Aid Corporation; JM Smith Corporation; Suffolk County, New York; Cigna Corp.; Walgreen Corporation; Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. et al.; CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; and County of Albany, New York, et al. These complaints have been consolidated into the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. Each of the opt-out complaints names several dozen defendants (including the Company) and involves allegations regarding the pricing of econazole (and in some cases fluocinolone acetonide) along with approximately 400 other generic drug products, most of which 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 some 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 and remains pending.

A complaint has also been filed by state Attorneys General based on pricing of topical drugs, and naming the Company as a defendant with respect to econazole nitrate. The Attorney General plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged overcharges during the alleged period of conspiracy. This action has been consolidated by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania for pre-trial proceedings as part of the In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation matter.

In addition, on June 3, 2020, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the Federal Court of Canada against the Company and its Canadian subsidiary, Teligent Canada, along with over fifty other pharmaceutical defendant companies. The Canadian lawsuit alleges that the generic drug manufacturer defendants conspired to allocate the Canadian market and customers, fix prices and maintain the supply of generic drugs in Canada to artificially maintain market share and higher generic drug prices in violation of Canada’s Competition Act. In terms of the Company and Teligent Canada, without limiting the general allegation of a general conspiracy over the generic drug market, the lawsuit specifically asserts allegations in relation to econzaole dating back to September 2013 and continuing to the present. The representative individual plaintiff seeks to represent a class comprised of all persons and entities in Canada who, from January 1, 2012 to the present, purchased generic drugs in the private sector (i.e. purchases made by individuals out-of-pocket and by individuals and businesses through private drug plans). The plaintiff is alleging aggregate damages of CDN$2.75 billion for harm caused to class members being charged increased prices as a result of the alleged conspiracy. The Canadian lawsuit is at a very early stage and the Company is unable to form a judgment at this time as to whether an unfavorable outcome is probable or remote or to provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss. The Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against the claim.

Due to the early stage of these cases, 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 these cases are without merit and it intends 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. The arbitrator has issued an interim award finding that the Company is not liable to Stayma on two of Stayma’s three claims against the Company. The third claim has proceeded to a damages phase, which the arbitrator has stayed pending a decision by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on the Company’s request to enjoin two of Stayma’s clients, Cintex Services LLC and Artesa Labs LLC, from arbitrating against the Company. The Company has argued that Stayma did not suffer any damages related to this claim and will vigorously pursue complete dismissal of the third claim. In addition, the arbitrator will determine money damages owed by Stayma to the Company relating to Stayma’s failure to pay several past due invoices of approximately $1.7 million.

On April 15, 2019 a federal class action was filed the Oklahoma Police Pension Fund and Retirement System against the Company and certain individual defendants in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded Teligent, Inc. securities from March 7, 2017 through November 6, 2017. The complaint alleges that defendants made false or misleading statements regarding the Company’s business, operational, and compliance policies in violation of U.S. securities laws. The plaintiff seeks to recover compensable damages. On June 17, 2020, the court, deeming pre-motion letters as a motion
to dismiss, granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. On Wednesday, May 5, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in principal to resolve this dispute and no additional accrual was required to be recognized, as the company had satisfied its self-insurance retention.

On July 15, 2020, a derivative complaint was filed by George Gonzalez, purportedly a shareholder of the Company, against certain past and current officers and directors of the Company in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, naming the Company as nominal Defendant. The lawsuit asserts a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the board members and a contribution claim against a former officer for allegedly participating in the alleged misstatements underlying the securities litigation discussed above.

On June 18, 2020, the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit in the 1st Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, State of New Mexico against various brand drug manufacturers, generic drug manufacturers, and stores that manufactured, designed, distributed, supplied, marketed, promoted, advertised, and/or sold ranitidine and/or Zantac® to New Mexico residents. The lawsuit alleged that these products contain unsafe levels on N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a known carcinogen. It further alleged that Defendants withheld the known dangers of the products from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) and knew or should have known of various studies demonstrating that Zantac®/ranitidine products contained and/or produced levels of NDMA well above FDA’s daily acceptable limit of 90ng. On April 16, 2021, the State of New Mexico filed its First Amended Complaint and abandoned all claims against the Company.

On November 12, 2020, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City against various brand drug manufacturers, generic drug manufacturers, and stores that manufactured, designed, distributed, supplied, marketed, promoted, advertised, and/or sold ranitidine and/or Zantac® to Baltimore, MD residents. The lawsuit was transferred to MDL No. 2924, In Re Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation in the United States of Florida on February 1, 2021. On April 1, 2021, the lawsuit was remanded back the Circuit Court of Maryland. The lawsuit alleges that these products contain unsafe levels on N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a known carcinogen. It further alleges that Defendants withheld the known dangers of the products and/or knew or should have known of various studies demonstrating that Zantac®/ranitidine products posed serious health risks. As to the Company specifically, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore state that the Company maintains an active pharmacy wholesaler license in Maryland and manufactures injectable prescription Zantac which was sold by retailers and supplied by distributors with Baltimore locations during the relevant period. It asserts that the Company created a public nuisance and was also negligent in its sale of this product. As to the common law public nuisance claim, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore seek unspecified funding for a citywide medical monitoring program. As to the common law negligence claim, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore seek unspecified monetary damages. Due to the early stage of this case, 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, if any. The Company believes this case to be without merit and it intends to vigorously defend against these claims.