Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2020
Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies
Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies	Note 11. Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies State Attorneys General Inquiry into the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry In July 2014, the Company received interrogatories and a 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 pursuant to the federal investigation described below. 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. The Company was not named in the action and does not compete on the products that formed the basis of the complaint. The complaint was later transferred for pretrial purposes to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of a multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. On October 31, 2017, the State Attorneys General filed a motion in 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 Court granted that motion on June 5, 2018. The State Attorneys General filed their amended complaint on June 18, 2018. The claim relating to Lannett involves alleged price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate, but does 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. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims, but has yet to decide an individual motion filed by the Company to dismiss the overreaching conspiracy claims as to it. On May 10, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed a new lawsuit naming the Company and one of its employees as defendants, along with 33 other corporations and individuals. The new complaint again alleges an overarching conspiracy and contains claims for price fixing and market allocation under the Sherman Act and related state laws. The complaint focuses on the conduct of another generic pharmaceutical company, and the relationships that company had with other generic companies and their employees. The specific allegations in the new complaint against Lannett relate to the Company’s sales of baclofen and levothyroxine. The new complaint also names another current employee as a defendant, however the allegations pertain to conduct that occurred prior to their employment by Lannett. The Company has not responded to the new complaint as of the date of this report. Based on internal investigations performed to date, the Company currently believes that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. Federal Investigation into the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry In November and December 2014, the Company and certain affiliated individuals and customers were served with grand jury subpoenas 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. The Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Department of Justice on May 14, 2018. The CID requested information regarding allegations that the generic pharmaceutical industry engaged in market allocation, price fixing, payment of illegal remuneration and submission of false claims. The CID requested information from 2009-present. The Company has provided a response to the CID. Based on internal investigations performed to date, the Company believes that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 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. For the period January 1, 2012 through November 24, 2015 (“the pre-acquisition period”), the Company is fully indemnified per the Stock Purchase Agreement. On May 22, 2019, the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") issued a Contracting Officer's Final Decision and Demand for Payment, assessing the sum of $9.4 million for overpayments by the Veteran's Administration for the period of January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2016. In August 2019, the Company remitted payment to the VA and received reimbursement from UCB for the indemnified portion of the payment in the amount of $8.1 million. Private Antitrust and Consumer Protection Litigation In 2016 and 2017, the Company and certain competitors were named as defendants in a number of lawsuits alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers 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 was 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 “MDL”). The various private 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. On October 16, 2018, the Court (with one exception) denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims with respect to the drugs in the first tranche. On March 15, 2019, the Company and other defendants filed answers to the Sherman Act claims. In addition, on February 15, 2019, the Court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs’ state law claims brought under the laws of Illinois, Rhode Island, Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, West Virginia, Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan and Nevada, but denied the remainder of defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court set a deadline of April 1, 2019 for certain plaintiffs to amend their existing complaints to reflect the rulings set forth in the Court’s February 15, 2019 ruling on the state law motions to dismiss. Those plaintiffs amended their complaints, but further motions to dismiss the state-law claims have been deferred until the Court decides pending motions to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ various overarching-conspiracy claims. In addition to lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs, the Attorneys General of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam have filed their own lawsuits alleging overarching, industry-wide price-fixing conspiracies by the Company and various other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Those suits have been consolidated in the MDL. The first suit alleges that the Company was involved in price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate. Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims in that suit was denied on August 15, 2019, but the Company’s individual motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims as to it remains outstanding. The Attorneys General also filed a second overarching conspiracy complaint on May 10, 2019 involving dozens of different drugs, including alleged price-fixing by the Company for baclofen and levothyroxine. Following the lead of the state Attorneys General, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, End Payer Plaintiffs and Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs filed their own complaints in June 2018 also alleging an overarching conspiracy, making similar allegations to those contained in the state Attorneys General complaint, relating to 14 generic drugs in the End Payer complaint and 15 generic drugs in the Indirect Reseller complaint. Although the complaints allege an overarching conspiracy with respect to all of the drugs identified, the specific allegations related to drugs the Company manufactures involve acetazolamide and doxycycline monohydrate. The Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims, but has yet to decide an individual motion filed by the Company to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims as to it. In addition, between December 2019 and February 2020, the End Payer Plaintiffs, Indirect Reseller Purchasers, and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed separate complaints alleging overarching, industry-wide price-fixing conspiracies modeled on the second one filed by the state Attorneys General. The new complaint involve 135 new drugs in addition to those named in previous complaints. As to the Company, the new drugs involved are Pilocarpine HCL, Triamterence HCTZ capsules, Amantadine HCL, and Oxycodone HCL. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to these new complaints. Between January 2018 and December 2019, a number of opt-out parties have filed individual complaints against the Company and dozens of other companies alleging an overarching conspiracy and individual conspiracies to fix the prices and allocate markets on dozens of different drug products, including digoxin, doxycycline, levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen. All of these complaints have been added to the MDL. No responses have been filed to any of the opt-out complaints. On July 29, 2019, a group of insurance companies filed a writ of summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia against the Company and dozens of other companies. The state court case has been stayed indefinitely pending further developments in the MDL. On November 13, 2019, 14 New York counties filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court alleging an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy involving the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to allocate markets and fix prices generally for a variety of generic drugs. The defendants have removed the case to federal court in New York and it has been transferred for pretrial purposes to the multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 2, 2020, Harris County, Texas filed a similar complaint alleging an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy involving the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in the Southern District of Texas. That complaint has been transferred for pretrial purposes to the multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to either complaint. On December 11, 2019, another opt-out direct purchaser filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy involving the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to allocate markets and fix prices generally for a variety of generic drugs. On December 27, 2019, another opt-out direct purchaser filed a similar complaint in the Northern District of California. Those complaints have been transferred for pretrial purposes to the multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to either complaint. 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 and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. Shareholder Litigation In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its former officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer damaged the purported class by including in the Company's 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. In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint. The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time. In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer damaged the purported class by making false and misleading statements in connection with the possible renewal of the JSP Distribution Agreement. In December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2019. In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. In May 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. During May and June 2019, the parties negotiated a proposed settlement and agreed to settle the litigation, by which the Company agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 without an admission of liability and subject to the negotiation of the terms of a stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court. In July 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and on July 31, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and scheduling a hearing for final approval of the settlement for February 7, 2020. In January 2020, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement and a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On February 7, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motions filed on behalf of the putative class. The same day, the Court issued an order granting both motions, entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the settlement class consistent with the settlement agreement, and dismissing all claims with prejudice. In May 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and certain of the current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors in the federal court for the District of Delaware. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, that certain of the defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading proxy statements in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that the defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of the Company, and that the defendants wasted corporate assets belonging to the Company. On December 4, 2019 the court entered a stipulation consolidating the suit with a separate shareholder derivative suit filed in July 2019, as described below. On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated cases. On January 14, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the consolidated cases, subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement document and Court approval. In July 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company and that certain of the defendants caused the Company to violate Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In October 2019, this suit was transferred to the federal court for the District of Delaware and is pending before the same judge presiding over the shareholder derivative suit that was filed in May 2019. On December 4, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation consolidating the suit with a separate shareholder derivative suit filed in May 2019, as described above. On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated cases. On January 14, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the consolidated cases, subject to the execution of a mutually agreeable settlement document and Court approval. The settlement of the two consolidated cases, if approved by the Court, will require the Company to implement certain new corporate policies and pay the plaintiffs’ counsel in the consolidated cases, collectively, the sum of $600,000 in exchange for a release of all liability with respect to both of the consolidated cases. On March 23, 2020, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the terms of their agreement. On March 27, 2020, the parties jointly submitted a letter to the Court enclosing the executed Memorandum of Understanding and stating that the parties intend to execute and file a formal settlement stipulation for approval by the Court. As a result of the pending settlement, on April 8, 2020 the parties entered into a stipulation to extend time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and joinder until April 24, 2020. The Court granted the stipulation on April 16, 2020. In September 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers, directors and employees in the federal court for the District of Delaware. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, alleges waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, and alleges that certain of the defendants caused the Company to violate Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On November 22, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 9, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the case pending the resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the two earlier filed consolidated shareholder derivative cases referenced above. On January 16, 2020, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. On February 14, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to withdraw the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to the Company’s ability to refile a renewed motion to dismiss after the stay is lifted. On February 18, 2020, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. On March 11, 2020, following notice that Plaintiffs no longer consented to the stay, the Court lifted the stay. On March 16, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation setting a briefing schedule for a renewed motion to dismiss. On March 17, 2020, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time. On April 6, 2020, certain of the Defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the account, and an opening brief in support thereof. On April 24, 2020, the parties stipulated to stay the action, pending a decision from the Court regarding the settlement in the derivative actions discussed above. The Court granted the Stipulation on April 29, 2020. In February 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers, directors and employees in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, and were unjustly enriched. On March 16, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and a motion to stay the proceedings. On March 27, 2020, the Company filed its opening brief in support of its motion to stay the proceedings. On April 6, 2020, the parties entered into a stipulation and proposed order to stay the action, which was subsequently granted by the Court that same day. Under the terms of the stipulated stay, the action shall be stayed pending a decision from the Court in the shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in May 2019 on the approval of the settlement. Genus Life Sciences In December 2018, Genus Lifesciences, Inc. (“Genus”) sued the Company, Cody Labs, and others in California federal court, alleging violations of the Lanham Act, Sherman Act, and California false advertising law. Genus received FDA approval for a cocaine hydrochloride product in December 2018, and its claims are premised in part on allegations that the Company falsely advertises its unapproved cocaine hydrochloride solution product. The Company denies that it is falsely advertising its cocaine hydrochloride solution product and continues to market its unapproved product relying on the Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry, Marketed Unapproved Drugs — Compliance Policy Guide, pending approval of its Section 505(b)(2) application. In January 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 3, 2019, the Court issued a written decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On June 6, 2019, Genus filed an Amended Complaint. On June 27, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. By Order dated September 3, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On November 20, 2019, Genus filed a second amended complaint. On December 17, 2019, the Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint. The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. Discovery is ongoing and the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this suit at this time. 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 11. Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies

State Attorneys General Inquiry into the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry

In July 2014, the Company received interrogatories and a 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 pursuant to the federal investigation described below. 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. The Company was not named in the action and does not compete on the products that formed the basis of the complaint. The complaint was later transferred for pretrial purposes to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania as part of a multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation. On October 31, 2017, the State Attorneys General filed a motion in 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 Court granted that motion on June 5, 2018. The State Attorneys General filed their amended complaint on June 18, 2018. The claim relating to Lannett involves alleged price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate, but does 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. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims, but has yet to decide an individual motion filed by the Company to dismiss the overreaching conspiracy claims as to it.

On May 10, 2019, the State Attorneys General filed a new lawsuit naming the Company and one of its employees as defendants, along with 33 other corporations and individuals. The new complaint again alleges an overarching conspiracy and contains claims for price fixing and market allocation under the Sherman Act and related state laws. The complaint focuses on the conduct of another generic pharmaceutical company, and the relationships that company had with other generic companies and their employees. The specific allegations in the new complaint against Lannett relate to the Company’s sales of baclofen and levothyroxine. The new complaint also names another current employee as a defendant, however the allegations pertain to conduct that occurred prior to their employment by Lannett. The Company has not responded to the new complaint as of the date of this report.

Based on internal investigations performed to date, the Company currently believes that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

Federal Investigation into the Generic Pharmaceutical Industry

In November and December 2014, the Company and certain affiliated individuals and customers were served with grand jury subpoenas 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.

The Company received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Department of Justice on May 14, 2018. The CID requested information regarding allegations that the generic pharmaceutical industry engaged in market allocation, price fixing, payment of illegal remuneration and submission of false claims. The CID requested information from 2009-present. The Company has provided a response to the CID.

Based on internal investigations performed to date, the Company believes that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

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. For the period January 1, 2012 through November 24, 2015 (“the pre-acquisition period”), the Company is fully indemnified per the Stock Purchase Agreement.

On May 22, 2019, the Department of Veterans Affairs ("VA") issued a Contracting Officer's Final Decision and Demand for Payment, assessing the sum of $9.4 million for overpayments by the Veteran's Administration for the period of January 1, 2012 through June 30, 2016. In August 2019, the Company remitted payment to the VA and received reimbursement from UCB for the indemnified portion of the payment in the amount of $8.1 million.

Private Antitrust and Consumer Protection Litigation

In 2016 and 2017, the Company and certain competitors were named as defendants in a number of lawsuits alleging that the Company and certain generic pharmaceutical manufacturers 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 was 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 “MDL”). The various private 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. On October 16, 2018, the Court (with one exception) denied defendants’ motions to dismiss plaintiffs’ Sherman Act claims with respect to the drugs in the first tranche. On March 15, 2019, the Company and other defendants filed answers to the Sherman Act claims. In addition, on February 15, 2019, the Court dismissed certain of the plaintiffs’ state law claims brought under the laws of Illinois, Rhode Island, Georgia, South Carolina, Montana, West Virginia, Alabama, New Jersey, Michigan and Nevada, but denied the remainder of defendants’ motions to dismiss. The Court set a deadline of April 1, 2019 for certain plaintiffs to amend their existing complaints to reflect the rulings set forth in the Court’s February 15, 2019 ruling on the state law motions to dismiss. Those plaintiffs amended their complaints, but further motions to dismiss the state-law claims have been deferred until the Court decides pending motions to dismiss with respect to the plaintiffs’ various overarching-conspiracy claims.

In addition to lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs, the Attorneys General of 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam have filed their own lawsuits alleging overarching, industry-wide price-fixing conspiracies by the Company and various other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. Those suits have been consolidated in the MDL. The first suit alleges that the Company was involved in price-fixing for one drug, doxycycline monohydrate. Defendants’ joint motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims in that suit was denied on August 15, 2019, but the Company’s individual motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims as to it remains outstanding. The Attorneys General also filed a second overarching conspiracy complaint on May 10, 2019 involving dozens of different drugs, including alleged price-fixing by the Company for baclofen and levothyroxine.

Following the lead of the state Attorneys General, the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, End Payer Plaintiffs and Indirect Reseller Plaintiffs filed their own complaints in June 2018 also alleging an overarching conspiracy, making similar allegations to those contained in the state Attorneys General complaint, relating to 14 generic drugs in the End Payer complaint and 15 generic drugs in the Indirect Reseller complaint. Although the complaints allege an overarching conspiracy with respect to all of the drugs identified, the specific allegations related to drugs the Company manufactures involve acetazolamide and doxycycline monohydrate.

The Company and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims, but has yet to decide an individual motion filed by the Company to dismiss the overarching conspiracy claims as to it. In addition, between December 2019 and February 2020, the End Payer Plaintiffs, Indirect Reseller Purchasers, and Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs filed separate complaints alleging overarching, industry-wide price-fixing conspiracies modeled on the second one filed by the state Attorneys General. The new complaint involve 135 new drugs in addition to those named in previous complaints. As to the Company, the new drugs involved are Pilocarpine HCL, Triamterence HCTZ capsules, Amantadine HCL, and Oxycodone HCL. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to these new complaints.

Between January 2018 and December 2019, a number of opt-out parties have filed individual complaints against the Company and dozens of other companies alleging an overarching conspiracy and individual conspiracies to fix the prices and allocate markets on dozens of different drug products, including digoxin, doxycycline, levothyroxine, ursodiol and baclofen. All of these complaints have been added to the MDL. No responses have been filed to any of the opt-out complaints. On July 29, 2019, a group of insurance companies filed a writ of summons in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia against the Company and dozens of other companies. The state court case has been stayed indefinitely pending further developments in the MDL.

On November 13, 2019, 14 New York counties filed a complaint in the Nassau County Supreme Court alleging an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy involving the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to allocate markets and fix prices generally for a variety of generic drugs. The defendants have removed the case to federal court in New York and it has been transferred for pretrial purposes to the multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On March 2, 2020, Harris County, Texas filed a similar complaint alleging an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy involving the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in the Southern District of Texas. That complaint has been transferred for pretrial purposes to the multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to either complaint.

On December 11, 2019, another opt-out direct purchaser filed a complaint in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging an overarching, industry-wide conspiracy involving the Company and other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers to allocate markets and fix prices generally for a variety of generic drugs. On December 27, 2019, another opt-out direct purchaser filed a similar complaint in the Northern District of California. Those complaints have been transferred for pretrial purposes to the multidistrict litigation pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. None of the defendants, including the Company, has responded yet to either complaint.

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 and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims.

Shareholder Litigation

In November 2016, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its former officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its former Chief Executive Officer, and its former Chief Financial Officer damaged the purported class by including in the Company's 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. In December 2017, counsel for the putative class filed a second amended complaint, and the Court denied as moot the Company’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in February 2018. In July 2018, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. In September 2018, counsel for the putative class filed a third amended complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint in November 2018. In May 2019, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss the third amended complaint. In July 2019, the Company filed an answer to the third amended complaint. The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time.

In October 2018, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer damaged the purported class by making false and misleading statements in connection with the possible renewal of the JSP Distribution Agreement. In December 2018, counsel for the putative class filed an amended complaint. The Company moved to dismiss the amended complaint in January 2019. In March 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motion to dismiss. In May 2019, the Company filed an answer to the amended complaint. During May and June 2019, the parties negotiated a proposed settlement and agreed to settle the litigation, by which the Company agreed to pay the sum of $300,000 without an admission of liability and subject to the negotiation of the terms of a stipulation of settlement and approval by the Court. In July 2019, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed settlement and on July 31, 2019, the Court issued an Order granting the motion and scheduling a hearing for final approval of the settlement for February 7, 2020. In January 2020, counsel for the putative class filed a motion for final approval of the proposed settlement and a motion for an award of attorneys’ fees and expenses. On February 7, 2020, the Court held a hearing on the motions filed on behalf of the putative class. The same day, the Court issued an order granting both motions, entering judgment in favor of the plaintiffs and the settlement class consistent with the settlement agreement, and dismissing all claims with prejudice.

In May 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and certain of the current and former members of the Company’s Board of Directors in the federal court for the District of Delaware. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, that certain of the defendants caused the Company to issue false and misleading proxy statements in violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that the defendants were unjustly enriched at the expense of the Company, and that the defendants wasted corporate assets belonging to the Company. On December 4, 2019 the court entered a stipulation consolidating the suit with a separate shareholder derivative suit filed in July 2019, as described below. On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated cases. On January 14, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the consolidated cases, subject to the execution of a mutually acceptable settlement document and Court approval.

In July 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors in the federal court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company and that certain of the defendants caused the Company to violate Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 29(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. In October 2019, this suit was transferred to the federal court for the District of Delaware and is pending before the same judge presiding over the shareholder derivative suit that was filed in May 2019. On December 4, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation consolidating the suit with a separate shareholder derivative suit filed in May 2019, as described above. On December 6, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated cases. On January 14, 2020, the parties reached an agreement in principle to resolve the consolidated cases, subject to the execution of a mutually agreeable settlement document and Court approval.

The settlement of the two consolidated cases, if approved by the Court, will require the Company to implement certain new corporate policies and pay the plaintiffs’ counsel in the consolidated cases, collectively, the sum of $600,000 in exchange for a release of all liability with respect to both of the consolidated cases. On March 23, 2020, the parties executed a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth the terms of their agreement. On March 27, 2020, the parties jointly submitted a letter to the Court enclosing the executed Memorandum of Understanding and stating that the parties intend to execute and file a formal settlement stipulation for approval by the Court. As a result of the pending settlement, on April 8, 2020 the parties entered into a stipulation to extend time for Plaintiffs to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and joinder until April 24, 2020. The Court granted the stipulation on April 16, 2020.

In September 2019, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers, directors and employees in the federal court for the District of Delaware. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, alleges waste of corporate assets and gross mismanagement, and alleges that certain of the defendants caused the Company to violate Section 14(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. On November 22, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On January 9, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the case pending the resolution of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the two earlier filed consolidated shareholder derivative cases referenced above. On January 16, 2020, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. On February 14, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation to withdraw the Company’s motion to dismiss without prejudice to the Company’s ability to refile a renewed motion to dismiss after the stay is lifted. On February 18, 2020, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. On March 11, 2020, following notice that Plaintiffs no longer consented to the stay, the Court lifted the stay. On March 16, 2020, the parties filed a stipulation setting a briefing schedule for a renewed motion to dismiss. On March 17, 2020, the Court entered the parties’ stipulation. The Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of the suit at this time. On April 6, 2020, certain of the Defendants, including the Company, filed a renewed motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the account, and an opening brief in support thereof. On April 24, 2020, the parties stipulated to stay the action, pending a decision from the Court regarding the settlement in the derivative actions discussed above. The Court granted the Stipulation on April 29, 2020.

In February 2020, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed against certain of the Company’s current and former officers, directors and employees in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The Company was also named as a nominal defendant in the suit. The suit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as directors and/or officers of the Company, and were unjustly enriched. On March 16, 2020, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and a motion to stay the proceedings. On March 27, 2020, the Company filed its opening brief in support of its motion to stay the proceedings. On April 6, 2020, the parties entered into a stipulation and proposed order to stay the action, which was subsequently granted by the Court that same day. Under the terms of the stipulated stay, the action shall be stayed pending a decision from the Court in the shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in May 2019 on the approval of the settlement.

Genus Life Sciences

In December 2018, Genus Lifesciences, Inc. (“Genus”) sued the Company, Cody Labs, and others in California federal court, alleging violations of the Lanham Act, Sherman Act, and California false advertising law. Genus received FDA approval for a cocaine hydrochloride product in December 2018, and its claims are premised in part on allegations that the Company falsely advertises its unapproved cocaine hydrochloride solution product. The Company denies that it is falsely advertising its cocaine hydrochloride solution product and continues to market its unapproved product relying on the Guidance for FDA Staff and Industry, Marketed Unapproved Drugs — Compliance Policy Guide, pending approval of its Section 505(b)(2) application. In January 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On May 3, 2019, the Court issued a written decision granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss. On June 6, 2019, Genus filed an Amended Complaint. On June 27, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. By Order dated September 3, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On November 20, 2019, Genus filed a second amended complaint. On December 17, 2019, the Company filed an answer to the second amended complaint. The Company believes it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and plans to vigorously defend itself from these claims. Discovery is ongoing and the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of this suit at this time.

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.