Legal and Regulatory Matters	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Legal And Regulatory Matters
Legal and Regulatory Matters	Note 12. Legal and Regulatory Matters Richard Asherman On April 16, 2013, Richard Asherman (“Asherman”), the former President of and a member in Realty, filed a complaint (“Complaint”) in Wyoming state court against the Company and Cody Labs. At the same time, he also filed an application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin certain operations at Cody Labs, claiming, among other things, that Cody Labs is in violation of certain zoning laws and that Cody Labs is required to increase the level of its property insurance and to secure performance bonds for work being performed at Cody Labs. Mr. Asherman claims Cody Labs is in breach of his employment agreement and is required to pay him severance under his employment agreement, including 18 months of base salary, vesting of unvested stock options and continuation of benefits. The Company estimates that the aggregate value of the claimed severance benefits is approximately $350 thousand to $400 thousand, plus the value of any stock options. Mr. Asherman also asserts that the Company is in breach of the Realty Operating Agreement and, among other requested remedies, he seeks to have the Company (i) pay him 50% of the value of 1.66 acres of land that Realty previously agreed to donate to an economic development entity associated with the City of Cody, Wyoming, which contemplated transaction has since been avoided and cancelled. Although Mr. Asherman originally sought to require that Lannett acquire his interest in Realty for an unspecified price and/or to dissolve Realty, those claims were recently dismissed. The Company strongly disputes the claims in the Amended Complaint, including that the Company is required to acquire Mr. Asherman’s interest in Realty. If Mr. Asherman were successful on his claim for breach of his employment agreement, he would be entitled to his contractual severance — 18 months’ salary plus the vesting of certain stock options and continuation of benefits. The amount the Company would be required to pay to Mr. Asherman if he were successful in compelling the buyout of his interest in Realty is dependent upon the value of the real property owned by Realty. If a buyout were required, Realty would become wholly owned by the Company. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range or aggregate dollar amount of Mr. Asherman’s claims or of any potential loss, if any, to the Company. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations. Connecticut Attorney General Inquiry In July 2014, the Company received interrogatories and subpoena from the State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General concerning its investigation into pricing of digoxin. According to the subpoena, the Connecticut Attorney General is investigating whether anyone engaged in any activities that resulted in (a) fixing, maintaining or controlling prices of digoxin or (b) allocating and dividing customers or territories relating to the sale of digoxin in violation of Connecticut antitrust law. The Company maintains that it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and continues to cooperate with the Connecticut Attorney General’s investigation. Federal Investigation into the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry On November 3, 2014, the Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing of the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena relating to a federal investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry into possible violations of the Sherman Act. The subpoena requests corporate documents of the Company relating to communications or correspondence with competitors regarding the sale of generic prescription medications, but is not specifically directed to any particular product and is not limited to any particular time period. The Company maintains that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and intends to cooperate with the federal investigation. Class Action - David Schaefer On August 27, 2014, David Schaefer, as an alleged class representative, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (14-cv-05008) against the Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws arising out of statements about the Company made in its securities filings during the period of September 10, 2013 through July 16, 2014. The complaint alleges that the statements were false and misleading because the defendants allegedly knew at the time the statements were made that the Company was in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws relating to its sale of digoxin. Mr. Schaefer’s complaint was voluntarily dismissed in September 2014. Patent Infringement (Paragraph IV Certification) There is substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical industry with respect to the manufacture, use, and sale of new products which are the subject of conflicting patent and intellectual property claims. Certain of these claims relate to paragraph IV certifications, which allege that an innovator patent is invalid or would not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the new drug. Zomig® The Company filed with the Food and Drug Administration an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 206350, along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that the two patents associated with the Zomig® nasal spray product (U.S. Patent No. 6,750,237 and U.S. Patent No. 67,220,767) are invalid. In July 2014, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca UK Limited, and Impax Laboratories, Inc. filed two patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 206350 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the two patents at issue are valid and infringed. In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss one patent infringement lawsuit for lack of standing and responded to the second lawsuit by denying that any valid patent claim would be infringed. Although the ultimate resolution of this matter is unknown, the legal fees associated with this patent challenge may have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in future periods.

Note 12. Legal and Regulatory Matters

Richard Asherman

On April 16, 2013, Richard Asherman (“Asherman”), the former President of and a member in Realty, filed a complaint (“Complaint”) in Wyoming state court against the Company and Cody Labs. At the same time, he also filed an application for a temporary restraining order to enjoin certain operations at Cody Labs, claiming, among other things, that Cody Labs is in violation of certain zoning laws and that Cody Labs is required to increase the level of its property insurance and to secure performance bonds for work being performed at Cody Labs. Mr. Asherman claims Cody Labs is in breach of his employment agreement and is required to pay him severance under his employment agreement, including 18 months of base salary, vesting of unvested stock options and continuation of benefits. The Company estimates that the aggregate value of the claimed severance benefits is approximately $350 thousand to $400 thousand, plus the value of any stock options. Mr. Asherman also asserts that the Company is in breach of the Realty Operating Agreement and, among other requested remedies, he seeks to have the Company (i) pay him 50% of the value of 1.66 acres of land that Realty previously agreed to donate to an economic development entity associated with the City of Cody, Wyoming, which contemplated transaction has since been avoided and cancelled. Although Mr. Asherman originally sought to require that Lannett acquire his interest in Realty for an unspecified price and/or to dissolve Realty, those claims were recently dismissed.

The Company strongly disputes the claims in the Amended Complaint, including that the Company is required to acquire Mr. Asherman’s interest in Realty. If Mr. Asherman were successful on his claim for breach of his employment agreement, he would be entitled to his contractual severance — 18 months’ salary plus the vesting of certain stock options and continuation of benefits. The amount the Company would be required to pay to Mr. Asherman if he were successful in compelling the buyout of his interest in Realty is dependent upon the value of the real property owned by Realty. If a buyout were required, Realty would become wholly owned by the Company. At this time the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range or aggregate dollar amount of Mr. Asherman’s claims or of any potential loss, if any, to the Company. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of the matter will have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.

Connecticut Attorney General Inquiry

In July 2014, the Company received interrogatories and subpoena from the State of Connecticut Office of the Attorney General concerning its investigation into pricing of digoxin. According to the subpoena, the Connecticut Attorney General is investigating whether anyone engaged in any activities that resulted in (a) fixing, maintaining or controlling prices of digoxin or (b) allocating and dividing customers or territories relating to the sale of digoxin in violation of Connecticut antitrust law. The Company maintains that it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and continues to cooperate with the Connecticut Attorney General’s investigation.

Federal Investigation into the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry

On November 3, 2014, the Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing of the Company was served with a grand jury subpoena relating to a federal investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry into possible violations of the Sherman Act. The subpoena requests corporate documents of the Company relating to communications or correspondence with competitors regarding the sale of generic prescription medications, but is not specifically directed to any particular product and is not limited to any particular time period. The Company maintains that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and intends to cooperate with the federal investigation.

Class Action - David Schaefer

On August 27, 2014, David Schaefer, as an alleged class representative, filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (14-cv-05008) against the Company and certain of its officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws arising out of statements about the Company made in its securities filings during the period of September 10, 2013 through July 16, 2014. The complaint alleges that the statements were false and misleading because the defendants allegedly knew at the time the statements were made that the Company was in violation of Connecticut antitrust laws relating to its sale of digoxin. Mr. Schaefer’s complaint was voluntarily dismissed in September 2014.

Patent Infringement (Paragraph IV Certification)

There is substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical industry with respect to the manufacture, use, and sale of new products which are the subject of conflicting patent and intellectual property claims. Certain of these claims relate to paragraph IV certifications, which allege that an innovator patent is invalid or would not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the new drug.

Zomig®

The Company filed with the Food and Drug Administration an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) No. 206350, along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that the two patents associated with the Zomig® nasal spray product (U.S. Patent No. 6,750,237 and U.S. Patent No. 67,220,767) are invalid. In July 2014, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca UK Limited, and Impax Laboratories, Inc. filed two patent infringement lawsuits in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 206350 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the two patents at issue are valid and infringed.

In September 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss one patent infringement lawsuit for lack of standing and responded to the second lawsuit by denying that any valid patent claim would be infringed. Although the ultimate resolution of this matter is unknown, the legal fees associated with this patent challenge may have a significant impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations in future periods.