Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2017
Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies
Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies	Note 12. Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies 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 the 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. In December 2016, the Connecticut Attorney General, joined by numerous other State Attorneys General, filed a civil complaint alleging that six pharmaceutical companies engaged in anti-competitive behavior related to Doxycycline Hyclate and Gliburide. The Company was not named in the action and does not compete on the products that formed the basis of the complaint. On October 31, 2017, the state Attorneys General filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add numerous additional defendants, including the Company, and claims relating to 13 additional drugs. The claim relating to Lannett involves alleged price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate, but did not involve the pricing for digoxin. The state Attorneys General also allege that all defendants were part of an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy to allocate markets and fix prices generally. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to the motion of the state Attorneys General. 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 years 2015 and 2016, 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. Texas Medicaid Investigation In August 2015, KUPI received a letter from the Texas Office of the Attorney General alleging that it 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 between the Company and UCB (“Stock Purchase Agreement”) dated September 2, 2015, the Company is fully indemnified for any pre-acquisition amounts. The Company is currently unable to estimate the timing or the outcome of this matter. Government Pricing During the quarter ended December 31, 2016, the Company completed a contract compliance review, for the period January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2016, for one of KUPI’s government-entity customers. As a result of the review, the Company identified certain commercial customer prices and other terms that were not properly disclosed to the government-entity resulting in potential overcharges. As of September 30, 2017 and June 30, 2017, the Company’s best estimate of the liability for potential overcharges was approximately $9.3 million. For the period January 1, 2012 through November 24, 2015 (“the pre-acquisition period”), the Company is fully indemnified per the Stock Purchase Agreement. Accordingly, the Company has recorded an indemnification asset and related liability of $8.3 million related to the pre-acquisition period. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a significant impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows. 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. The first lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern of Pennsylvania, was dismissed on September 25, 2017 (the “Federal Action”). It is unknown at this time whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal the dismissal of the Federal Action. The second lawsuit, pending in the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) County Court of Common Pleas, was stayed pending the final resolution of the Federal Action. The Company disputes these allegations and 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. EPA Violation Notice On July 13, 2017, the United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) sent a Finding of Violation to KUPI alleging several violations of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants at KUPI’s Seymour, Indiana facility. The EPA is giving the company the opportunity to discuss the matter with the agency before filing a formal complaint or assessing fines with respect to the alleged violations. The Company is conducting an investigation into the matter and cannot reasonably predict the outcome of any potential EPA action at this time. Private Antitrust and Consumer Protection Litigation The Company and certain competitors have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in 2016 and 2017 alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have conspired to fix prices of generic digoxin, levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen. These cases are part of a larger group of more than 100 lawsuits generally alleging that over 30 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors conspired to fix prices for at least 18 different generic drugs in violation of the federal Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws, and various state consumer protection statutes. The United States also has been granted leave to intervene in the cases. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) ordered that all of the cases alleging price-fixing for generic drugs be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The various plaintiffs are grouped into three categories — Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, End Payer Plaintiffs, and Indirect Reseller Purchasers — and filed Consolidated Amended Complaints (“CACs”) against the Company and the other defendants on August 15, 2017. The CACs naming the Company as a defendant involve generic digoxin, levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen. Pursuant to a court-ordered schedule grouping the 18 different drug cases into three separate tranches, the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturer defendants on October 6, 2017 filed joint and individual motions to dismiss the CACs involving the six drugs in the first tranche, including digoxin. In addition to the lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs, the Attorneys General of 45 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have filed parens patriae lawsuits alleging price-fixing conspiracies by various generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, but not involving the Company. The JPML has consolidated the suits by the state Attorneys General in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of the multidistrict litigation. The original lawsuits did not name the Company, but the state Attorneys General on October 31, 2017 filed a motion with the District Court for leave to amend their complaint to add numerous additional defendants, including the Company, and claims relating to 13 additional drugs. The claim relating to Lannett involves alleged price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate, although the state Attorneys General allege that all defendants were part of an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy to allocate markets and fix prices generally. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to the motion of the state Attorneys General. 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. Shareholder Litigation In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. The response to the motion to dismiss is due to be filed in November 2017. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time. 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 trial was conducted in September 2016. The Court issued its decision on March 29, 2017, finding that Lannett did not prove that the patents at issue are invalid. The Company has appealed the decision. All briefing to the appellate court has been submitted, and the parties are waiting for the appellate court to set a date for oral argument before the court. A final decision of the appellate court is expected in late 2017 or early 2018. 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, and an amended answer to the complaint. A settlement agreement was reached and the Court dismissed the lawsuit in October 2017. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company entered into a license agreement that permits Lannett to manufacture and market in the U.S. its generic thalidomide product as of August 1, 2019 or earlier under certain circumstances. SUPREP® The Company filed ANDA No. 209941 with the Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to sell a bowel preparation oral solution (the “Company’s Oral Solution”), along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that US Patent 6,946,149 associated with the Suprep® bowel preparation kit would not be infringed by the Company’s Oral Solution and/or that the patent is invalid. In March 2017, Braintree Laboratories, Inc. (“Braintree”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00293-GMS), alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 209941 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the patent at issue was infringed by the submission of ANDA No. 209941. The Company answered the complaint denying infringement and raising invalidity as a defense, and has filed counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity. The matter is currently scheduled for a 4-day bench trial beginning on January 22, 2019. On July 28, 2017, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a ruling that its ANDA product does not infringe the Braintree patent and seeking judgment as a matter of law. Braintree has opposed the motion and has alternatively requested that the Court delay its decision on the motion until discover is taken. The Company has opposed Braintree’s request to delay the decision. All motions remain pending at this time. 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. 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, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies

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 the 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. In December 2016, the Connecticut Attorney General, joined by numerous other State Attorneys General, filed a civil complaint alleging that six pharmaceutical companies engaged in anti-competitive behavior related to Doxycycline Hyclate and Gliburide. The Company was not named in the action and does not compete on the products that formed the basis of the complaint. On October 31, 2017, the state Attorneys General filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add numerous additional defendants, including the Company, and claims relating to 13 additional drugs. The claim relating to Lannett involves alleged price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate, but did not involve the pricing for digoxin. The state Attorneys General also allege that all defendants were part of an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy to allocate markets and fix prices generally. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to the motion of the state Attorneys General.

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 years 2015 and 2016, 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.

Texas Medicaid Investigation

In August 2015, KUPI received a letter from the Texas Office of the Attorney General alleging that it 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 between the Company and UCB (“Stock Purchase Agreement”) dated September 2, 2015, the Company is fully indemnified for any pre-acquisition amounts. The Company is currently unable to estimate the timing or the outcome of this matter.

Government Pricing

During the quarter ended December 31, 2016, the Company completed a contract compliance review, for the period January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2016, for one of KUPI’s government-entity customers. As a result of the review, the Company identified certain commercial customer prices and other terms that were not properly disclosed to the government-entity resulting in potential overcharges. As of September 30, 2017 and June 30, 2017, the Company’s best estimate of the liability for potential overcharges was approximately $9.3 million. For the period January 1, 2012 through November 24, 2015 (“the pre-acquisition period”), the Company is fully indemnified per the Stock Purchase Agreement. Accordingly, the Company has recorded an indemnification asset and related liability of $8.3 million related to the pre-acquisition period. The Company does not believe that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a significant impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

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. The first lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern of Pennsylvania, was dismissed on September 25, 2017 (the “Federal Action”). It is unknown at this time whether the plaintiffs will seek to appeal the dismissal of the Federal Action. The second lawsuit, pending in the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) County Court of Common Pleas, was stayed pending the final resolution of the Federal Action. The Company disputes these allegations and 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.

EPA Violation Notice

On July 13, 2017, the United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) sent a Finding of Violation to KUPI alleging several violations of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants at KUPI’s Seymour, Indiana facility. The EPA is giving the company the opportunity to discuss the matter with the agency before filing a formal complaint or assessing fines with respect to the alleged violations. The Company is conducting an investigation into the matter and cannot reasonably predict the outcome of any potential EPA action at this time.

Private Antitrust and Consumer Protection Litigation

The Company and certain competitors have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits filed in 2016 and 2017 alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers have conspired to fix prices of generic digoxin, levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen. These cases are part of a larger group of more than 100 lawsuits generally alleging that over 30 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors conspired to fix prices for at least 18 different generic drugs in violation of the federal Sherman Act, various state antitrust laws, and various state consumer protection statutes. The United States also has been granted leave to intervene in the cases. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the “JPML”) ordered that all of the cases alleging price-fixing for generic drugs be consolidated for pretrial proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania under the caption In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. The various plaintiffs are grouped into three categories — Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, End Payer Plaintiffs, and Indirect Reseller Purchasers — and filed Consolidated Amended Complaints (“CACs”) against the Company and the other defendants on August 15, 2017. The CACs naming the Company as a defendant involve generic digoxin, levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen. Pursuant to a court-ordered schedule grouping the 18 different drug cases into three separate tranches, the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturer defendants on October 6, 2017 filed joint and individual motions to dismiss the CACs involving the six drugs in the first tranche, including digoxin.

In addition to the lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs, the Attorneys General of 45 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have filed parens patriae lawsuits alleging price-fixing conspiracies by various generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, but not involving the Company. The JPML has consolidated the suits by the state Attorneys General in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of the multidistrict litigation. The original lawsuits did not name the Company, but the state Attorneys General on October 31, 2017 filed a motion with the District Court for leave to amend their complaint to add numerous additional defendants, including the Company, and claims relating to 13 additional drugs. The claim relating to Lannett involves alleged price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate, although the state Attorneys General allege that all defendants were part of an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy to allocate markets and fix prices generally. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to the motion of the state Attorneys General.

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.

Shareholder Litigation

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the Company and two of its officers claiming that the Company damaged the purported class by including in its securities filings false and misleading statements regarding the Company’s drug pricing methodologies and internal controls. An amended complaint was filed in May 2017, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in September 2017. The response to the motion to dismiss is due to be filed in November 2017. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time.

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 trial was conducted in September 2016. The Court issued its decision on March 29, 2017, finding that Lannett did not prove that the patents at issue are invalid. The Company has appealed the decision. All briefing to the appellate court has been submitted, and the parties are waiting for the appellate court to set a date for oral argument before the court. A final decision of the appellate court is expected in late 2017 or early 2018.

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, and an amended answer to the complaint.

A settlement agreement was reached and the Court dismissed the lawsuit in October 2017. Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Company entered into a license agreement that permits Lannett to manufacture and market in the U.S. its generic thalidomide product as of August 1, 2019 or earlier under certain circumstances.

SUPREP®

The Company filed ANDA No. 209941 with the Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to sell a bowel preparation oral solution (the “Company’s Oral Solution”), along with a paragraph IV certification, alleging that US Patent 6,946,149 associated with the Suprep® bowel preparation kit would not be infringed by the Company’s Oral Solution and/or that the patent is invalid.

In March 2017, Braintree Laboratories, Inc. (“Braintree”) filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 1:17-cv-00293-GMS), alleging that the Company’s filing of ANDA No. 209941 constitutes an act of patent infringement and seeking a declaration that the patent at issue was infringed by the submission of ANDA No. 209941. The Company answered the complaint denying infringement and raising invalidity as a defense, and has filed counterclaims seeking a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity. The matter is currently scheduled for a 4-day bench trial beginning on January 22, 2019. On July 28, 2017, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, seeking a ruling that its ANDA product does not infringe the Braintree patent and seeking judgment as a matter of law. Braintree has opposed the motion and has alternatively requested that the Court delay its decision on the motion until discover is taken. The Company has opposed Braintree’s request to delay the decision. All motions remain pending at this time.

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.

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.