Legal and Regulatory Matters	12 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2016
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 that he can prove was lost as a result of his termination. 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 have been dismissed. The Company strongly disputes the claims in the Complaint and has filed motions for summary judgment. Trial is currently scheduled for October 2016. If Mr. Asherman is 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 any stock options which Mr. Asherman can prove were capable of being exercised and were actually exercised within three months of his termination. The Company does not believe that he is entitled to any payments with respect to the options, plus a continuation of benefits. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range or aggregate dollar amount 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, results of operations or cash flows. 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. In June 2016, the Connecticut Attorney General issued interrogatories and a subpoena to an employee of the Company in order to gain access to documents and responses previously supplied to the Department of Justice. 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 In fiscal year 2015, the Company and certain affiliated individuals each were served with a grand jury subpoena relating to a federal investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry into possible violations of the Sherman Act. The subpoenas request corporate documents of the Company relating to corporate, financial and employee information, communications or correspondence with competitors regarding the sale of generic prescription medications and the marketing, sale, or pricing of certain products, generally for the period of 2005 through the dates of the subpoenas. Based on reviews performed to date by outside counsel, the Company currently believes that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and continues to cooperate with the federal investigation. 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 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. In the second lawsuit, the Company also counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the patent claims are invalid and not infringed. The Court has consolidated the two actions and denied the motion to dismiss the first action without prejudice. In July 2015, the Company filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) a Petition for Inter Partes Review of each of the patents in suit seeking to reject as invalid all claims of the patents in suit. The USPTO has issued a decision denying initiation of the Inter Partes Review. A court-ordered mediation before a magistrate judge was conducted in April 2016. The mediation did not result in a resolution of this matter. Thalomid® The Company filed with the Food and Drug Administration an ANDA No. 206601, along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that the fifteen patents associated with the Thalomid drug product (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,045,501; 6,315,720; 6,561,976; 6,561,977; 6,755,784; 6,869,399; 6,908,432; 7,141,018; 7,230,012; 7,435,745; 7,874,984; 7,959,566; 8,204,763; 8,315,886; 8,589,188 and 8,626,53) are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. On January 30, 2015, Celgene Corporation and Children’s Medical Center Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 206601 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the patents at issue are valid and infringed. The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint. The Company has responded to the complaint by filing a motion challenging personal jurisdiction. The court has decided to allow limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction and has administratively terminated the motion while discovery is taken on the issue. Dilaudid® The Company filed with the Food and Drug Administration an ANDA No. 207108, along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that US Patent 6,589,960 associated with the Dilaudid® (hydromorphone oral solution) would not be infringed by the Company’s proposed hydromorphone oral solution product and/or that the patent is invalid. On August 8, 2015, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P, Purdue Pharma L.P and Purdue Pharma Technologies Inc. (“Purdue”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 207108 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the patent at issue was infringed by the submission of ANDA No, 207108. The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint. The Company and Purdue have reached a settlement in principle and details are being finalized. Nexium® KUPI was sued on December 5, 2013, by AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc. and KBI-E Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,714,504, 6,369,085, 7,411,070 and 8,466,175 through submission of an ANDA to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval to market 20 mg and 40 mg esomeprazole magnesium delayed-release tablets. On May 2016, the Company and AstraZeneca settled all claims related to this case. Although the Company cannot currently predict the length or outcome of paragraph IV litigation, legal expenses associated with these lawsuits could have a significant impact on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company. Texas Medicare Litigation In August 2015, KUPI received a letter from the Texas Office of the Attorney General alleging that they had inaccurately reported certain price information in violation of the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. UCB, KUPI’s previous parent company is handling the defense and is evaluating the allegations and cooperating with the Texas Attorney General’s Office. Per the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement the Company is fully indemnified for any losses associated with this matter. In conjunction with information received from UCB’s legal counsel, the Company is currently unable to estimate the timing or the outcome of this matter. AWP Litigation The Company and some of our competitors have been named as defendants in two lawsuits filed in 2016 alleging that the Company and a number of other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of our and their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company stopped using AWP as a basis for establishing prices in or around 2002 and the bulk of prescription drugs manufactured by the Company was sold under private label and dispute the allegations set forth in these lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Private Antitrust and Consumer Protection Litigation The Company and certain competitors have been named as defendants in 19 lawsuits filed in 2016 alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have conspired to fix prices of generic digoxin and doxycycline. There is a proceeding before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, regarding centralization of all of these related cases. Oral argument was held on July 28, 2016. The Panel has not yet made a decision. The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Company disputes the allegations set forth in these class actions. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Other Litigation Matters The Company is also subject to various legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of its business including, but not limited to, product liability, intellectual property, patent infringement claims and antitrust matters. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these various proceedings. An adverse determination in any of these proceedings in the future could have a significant impact on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.

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 that he can prove was lost as a result of his termination. 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 have been dismissed.

The Company strongly disputes the claims in the Complaint and has filed motions for summary judgment. Trial is currently scheduled for October 2016. If Mr. Asherman is 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 any stock options which Mr. Asherman can prove were capable of being exercised and were actually exercised within three months of his termination. The Company does not believe that he is entitled to any payments with respect to the options, plus a continuation of benefits. At this time, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate a range or aggregate dollar amount 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, results of operations or cash flows.

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. In June 2016, the Connecticut Attorney General issued interrogatories and a subpoena to an employee of the Company in order to gain access to documents and responses previously supplied to the Department of Justice. 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

In fiscal year 2015, the Company and certain affiliated individuals each were served with a grand jury subpoena relating to a federal investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry into possible violations of the Sherman Act. The subpoenas request corporate documents of the Company relating to corporate, financial and employee information, communications or correspondence with competitors regarding the sale of generic prescription medications and the marketing, sale, or pricing of certain products, generally for the period of 2005 through the dates of the subpoenas.

Based on reviews performed to date by outside counsel, the Company currently believes that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and continues to cooperate with the federal investigation.

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 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. In the second lawsuit, the Company also counterclaimed for a declaratory judgment that the patent claims are invalid and not infringed. The Court has consolidated the two actions and denied the motion to dismiss the first action without prejudice.

In July 2015, the Company filed with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) a Petition for Inter Partes Review of each of the patents in suit seeking to reject as invalid all claims of the patents in suit. The USPTO has issued a decision denying initiation of the Inter Partes Review.

A court-ordered mediation before a magistrate judge was conducted in April 2016. The mediation did not result in a resolution of this matter.

Thalomid®

The Company filed with the Food and Drug Administration an ANDA No. 206601, along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that the fifteen patents associated with the Thalomid drug product (U.S. Patent Nos. 6,045,501; 6,315,720; 6,561,976; 6,561,977; 6,755,784; 6,869,399; 6,908,432; 7,141,018; 7,230,012; 7,435,745; 7,874,984; 7,959,566; 8,204,763; 8,315,886; 8,589,188 and 8,626,53) are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed. On January 30, 2015, Celgene Corporation and Children’s Medical Center Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 206601 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the patents at issue are valid and infringed. The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint.

The Company has responded to the complaint by filing a motion challenging personal jurisdiction. The court has decided to allow limited discovery on the issue of personal jurisdiction and has administratively terminated the motion while discovery is taken on the issue.

Dilaudid®

The Company filed with the Food and Drug Administration an ANDA No. 207108, along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that US Patent 6,589,960 associated with the Dilaudid® (hydromorphone oral solution) would not be infringed by the Company’s proposed hydromorphone oral solution product and/or that the patent is invalid. On August 8, 2015, Purdue Pharmaceutical Products L.P, Purdue Pharma L.P and Purdue Pharma Technologies Inc. (“Purdue”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 207108 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the patent at issue was infringed by the submission of ANDA No, 207108. The Company filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the complaint. The Company and Purdue have reached a settlement in principle and details are being finalized.

Nexium®

KUPI was sued on December 5, 2013, by AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, AstraZeneca LP, KBI Inc. and KBI-E Inc., alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,714,504, 6,369,085, 7,411,070 and 8,466,175 through submission of an ANDA to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval to market 20 mg and 40 mg esomeprazole magnesium delayed-release tablets. On May 2016, the Company and AstraZeneca settled all claims related to this case.

Although the Company cannot currently predict the length or outcome of paragraph IV litigation, legal expenses associated with these lawsuits could have a significant impact on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.

Texas Medicare Litigation

In August 2015, KUPI received a letter from the Texas Office of the Attorney General alleging that they had inaccurately reported certain price information in violation of the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act. UCB, KUPI’s previous parent company is handling the defense and is evaluating the allegations and cooperating with the Texas Attorney General’s Office. Per the terms of the Stock Purchase Agreement the Company is fully indemnified for any losses associated with this matter. In conjunction with information received from UCB’s legal counsel, the Company is currently unable to estimate the timing or the outcome of this matter.

AWP Litigation

The Company and some of our competitors have been named as defendants in two lawsuits filed in 2016 alleging that the Company and a number of other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers caused the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) of our and their products to be inflated, thereby injuring government programs, entities and persons who reimbursed prescription drugs based on AWPs. The Company stopped using AWP as a basis for establishing prices in or around 2002 and the bulk of prescription drugs manufactured by the Company was sold under private label and dispute the allegations set forth in these lawsuits. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Private Antitrust and Consumer Protection Litigation

The Company and certain competitors have been named as defendants in 19 lawsuits filed in 2016 alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have conspired to fix prices of generic digoxin and doxycycline. There is a proceeding before the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, regarding centralization of all of these related cases. Oral argument was held on July 28, 2016. The Panel has not yet made a decision. The Company believes that it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Accordingly, the Company disputes the allegations set forth in these class actions. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of these lawsuits will have a significant impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Litigation Matters

The Company is also subject to various legal proceedings arising out of the normal course of its business including, but not limited to, product liability, intellectual property, patent infringement claims and antitrust matters. It is not possible to predict the outcome of these various proceedings. An adverse determination in any of these proceedings in the future could have a significant impact on the financial position, results of operations and cash flows of the Company.