Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	Contingencies Legal Proceedings The Company is involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries and proceedings and litigation matters that arise from time to time, some of which are described below. The Company is also party to certain litigation matters for which Merck KGaA has agreed to indemnify the Company, pursuant to the agreement by which Mylan acquired the former Merck Generics business. While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and intends to vigorously defend its position, the process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of any such proceeding. It is possible that an unfavorable resolution of any of the matters described below, or the inability or denial of Merck KGaA, another indemnitor or an insurer to pay an indemnified claim, could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Unless otherwise disclosed below, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the respective litigation or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses. Legal costs are recorded as incurred and are classified in selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Lorazepam and Clorazepate On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”), and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been accrued for by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API supply agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, Lorazepam and Clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to Mylan’s 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and Clorazepate. Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On December 20, 2006, the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that request was granted on January 24, 2008. On February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million, which, in the case of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory damages in the original verdict (approximately $11.0 million in total) and, in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict plus doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages assessed against each of the defendants (approximately $58.0 million in total), some or all of which may be subject to indemnification obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately $8.0 million. The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest, which has been granted. Mylan has contested this ruling along with the liability finding and other damages awards as part of its appeal, which was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On January 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings based on lack of diversity with respect to certain plaintiffs. On June 13, 2011, Mylan filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the certiorari petition was denied. The case is now proceeding before the District Court where motion practice is currently pending. Plaintiffs have sought to voluntarily dismiss self-funded customers whose presence destroys the District Court's diversity jurisdiction, and have moved for a remittitur (reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages award. In connection with the Company’s appeal of the judgment, the Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million. On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the surety bond reduced to $66.6 million to reflect the approximate remittitur amount requested by the plaintiffs. Pricing and Medicaid Litigation Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI and/or Mylan Institutional Inc. (formerly known as UDL Laboratories, Inc. and "MII"), together with many other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in civil lawsuits filed by state attorneys general (“AGs”) and municipal bodies within the state of New York alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by allegedly reporting “Average Wholesale Prices” and/or “Wholesale Acquisition Costs” that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants’ prescription drugs, causing state programs to overpay pharmacies and other providers. To date, Mylan, MPI and/or MII have been named as defendants in substantially similar civil lawsuits filed by the AGs of Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, and also by the city of New York and approximately 40 counties across New York State. Several of these cases have been transferred to the AWP multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for pretrial proceedings. Other cases will likely be litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Each of the cases seeks money damages, civil penalties and/or double, treble or punitive damages, counsel fees and costs, equitable relief and/or injunctive relief. Mylan and its subsidiaries have denied liability and are defending each of these actions vigorously. In May 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by a private plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Mylan, MPI, MII and several other generic manufacturers. The original complaint was filed under seal in April 2000, and Mylan, MPI and MII were added as parties in February 2001. The claims against Mylan, MPI, MII and the other generic manufacturers were severed from the April 2000 complaint (which remains under seal) as a result of the federal government’s decision not to intervene in the action as to those defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the False Claims Act and set forth allegations substantially similar to those alleged in the state AG cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph and purported to seek nationwide recovery of any and all alleged overpayment of the “federal share” under the Medicaid program, as well as treble damages and civil penalties. In December 2010, the Company completed a settlement of this case (except for the claims related to the California federal share) and the Texas state action mentioned above. This settlement resolved a significant portion of the damages claims asserted against Mylan, MPI and MII in the various pending pricing litigations. In addition, Mylan has reached settlements of the Alabama, Alaska, California (including the “federal share”), Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York state and county, South Carolina, and Utah state actions. The Company has also reached agreements in principle to settle the Louisiana and Oklahoma actions, which settlements are contingent upon the execution of definitive settlement documents. With regard to the remaining state actions, the Company continues to believe that it has meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending itself in those actions. The Company had accrued approximately $115.0 million at December 31, 2011. As a result of settlement payments of approximately $82.0 million and additional accruals of approximately $20.0 million during the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company has a remaining accrual of approximately $55.0 million at June 30, 2012. The Company reviews the status of these actions on an ongoing basis, and from time to time, the Company may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that management believes are in the best interests of the Company. There are no assurances that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts that may be provided for. However, the range of reasonably possible loss above the amount provided for cannot be estimated. Mylan Specialty (formerly known as Dey) was named as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and third-party payors. Mylan Specialty has reached a settlement of these class actions, which has been approved by the court and all claims have been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Dey in August 1997. In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-intervention and the case was unsealed in September 2006. The Government asserted that Dey was jointly liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Dey completed a settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Dey falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Dey, that Dey caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Dey caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims. Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan is fully indemnified for these claims and Merck KGaA is entitled to any income tax benefit the Company realizes for any deductions of amounts paid for such pricing litigation. Under the indemnity, Merck KGaA is responsible for all settlement and legal costs, and, as such, these settlements had no impact on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. At June 30, 2012, the Company has accrued approximately $67.9 million in other current liabilities, which represents its estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan Specialty’s known claims with respect to this pricing litigation have been settled. Modafinil Antitrust Litigation and FTC Inquiry Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs, seeking approval to market a generic Modafinil product. These actions allege violations of federal and state laws in connection with the defendants’ settlement of patent litigation relating to Modafinil. On March 29, 2010, the Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Fact discovery closed on February 11, 2011. No date has been set for briefing on dispositive motions. Mylan is defending each of these actions vigorously. In addition, by letter dated July 11, 2006, Mylan was notified by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) of an investigation relating to the settlement of the Modafinil patent litigation. In its letter, the FTC requested certain information from Mylan, MPI and Mylan Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the patent litigation and the settlement thereof. On March 29, 2007, the FTC issued a subpoena, and on April 26, 2007, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to Mylan, requesting additional information from the Company relating to the investigation. Mylan has cooperated fully with the government’s investigation and completed all requests for information. On February 13, 2008, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Cephalon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the case has subsequently been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 1, 2010, the FTC issued a third party subpoena to Mylan, requesting documents in connection with its lawsuit against Cephalon. Mylan has responded to the subpoena. Mylan is not named as a defendant in the FTC’s lawsuit, although the complaint includes certain allegations pertaining to the Mylan/Cephalon settlement. FTC Minocycline Inquiry On May 1, 2012, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to Mylan pertaining to an investigation being conducted to determine whether Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Mylan, and/or other generic companies engaged in unfair methods of competition with regard to Medicis' branded Solodyn products and generic Solodyn products, as well as the 2010 settlement of Medicis' patent infringement claims against Mylan and Matrix Laboratories Ltd. (n/k/a Mylan Laboratories Ltd). Mylan is cooperating with the FTC and is in the process of responding to the requests for information. Digitek^® Recall On April 25, 2008, Actavis Totowa LLC, a division of Actavis Group, announced a voluntary, nationwide recall of all lots and all strengths of Digitek (Digoxin tablets USP). Digitek was manufactured by Actavis and distributed in the United States by MPI and MII. The Company has tendered its defense and indemnity in all lawsuits and claims arising from this event to Actavis, and Actavis has accepted that tender, subject to a reservation of rights. While the Company is unable to estimate total potential costs with any degree of certainty, such costs could be significant. Following the recall, approximately 1,000 lawsuits were filed against Mylan, MII and Actavis. Most of these cases were transferred to the multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for pretrial proceedings. The remaining cases are being litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Actavis has reached settlements in principle with the plaintiffs in a majority of the claims and lawsuits. Mylan and MII did not contribute monetarily to the settlements, but were dismissed with prejudice from any settled cases. Any lawsuits in which the plaintiffs chose to opt out of the settlement continue to be litigated. As of July 11, 2012, approximately four plaintiffs who opted out of the settlement continue to pursue claims. An adverse outcome in these lawsuits or the inability or denial of Actavis to pay on an indemnified claim could have a materially negative impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, although the range of reasonably possible loss cannot be estimated. EU Commission Proceedings On or around July 8, 2009, the European Commission (the “EU Commission” or the “Commission”) stated that it had initiated antitrust proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation No. 1/2003 and Article 2(1) of Regulation No. 773/2004 to explore possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC and Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement by Les Laboratoires Servier (“Servier”) as well as possible infringement of Article 81 EC by the Company’s Indian subsidiary, Mylan Laboratories Limited (formerly known as Matrix Laboratories Limited), and four other companies, each of which entered into agreements with Servier relating to the product Perindopril. Mylan Laboratories Limited is cooperating with the EU Commission in connection with the investigation. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Mylan S.A.S. and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. have received requests for information from the EU Commission in connection with this matter, and have responded and are cooperating with the Commission in this investigation. The EU Commission has indicated publicly that it intends to take further steps in connection with its investigation. In addition, the EU Commission is conducting a pharmaceutical sector inquiry involving approximately 100 companies concerning the introduction of innovative and generic medicines. Mylan S.A.S. has responded to the questionnaires received in connection with the sector inquiry and has produced documents and other information in connection with the inquiry. On October 6, 2009, the Company received notice that the EU Commission was initiating an investigation pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation No. 1/2003 to explore possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the Company and its affiliates. Mylan S.A.S., acting on behalf of its Mylan affiliates, has produced documents and other information in connection with the inquiry and continues to respond to other requests for additional information. The Company is cooperating with the Commission in connection with the investigation, and no statement of objections has been filed against the Company in connection with the investigation. On March 19, 2010, Mylan and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. received notice that the EU Commission had opened proceedings against Lundbeck with respect to alleged unilateral practices and/or agreements related to Citalopram in the European Economic Area. Mylan and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. have responded to requests for information from the EU Commission in connection with any agreements between Lundbeck and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. concerning Citalopram. Both companies have cooperated with the EU Commission. A Statement of Objections was issued to Lundbeck, Merck KGaA, Generics [U.K.] Limited, Arrow, Resolution Chemicals, Xelia Pharmaceuticals, Alpharma, A.L. Industrier and Ranbaxy on July 25, 2012. Generics [U.K.] Limited intends to respond to the Statement of Objections and vigorously defend itself against the allegations contained therein. U.K. Office of Fair Trading On August 12, 2011 Generics [U.K.] Ltd. received notice that the Office of Fair Trading was opening an investigation to explore the possible infringement of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 and 102 on the Functioning of the European Union, with respect to alleged agreements related to Paroxetine. Generics [U.K.] Ltd. has produced documents and information and continues to respond to additional requests for information in connection with this inquiry and is continuing to cooperate with the investigation. No statement of objections has been filed in connection with this investigation. Product Liability The Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to its fentanyl transdermal system, phenytoin and Amnesteem^®. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the Company. During 2010, the Company accrued $41.0 million in connection with certain settlements and certain remaining claims. The Company has paid approximately $18.2 million during the six months ended June 30, 2012 and approximately $15.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2011. There are no assurances that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts that may be provided for. However, the range of reasonably possible loss above the amount provided for cannot be estimated. Intellectual Property On February 10, 2012, a jury verdict was rendered in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (f/k/a Sepracor Inc.) against Mylan Inc., MPI, Dey Inc. and Dey Pharma, L.P. (n/k/a Mylan Specialty L.P.) in relation to Dey’s abbreviated new drug application for levalbuterol hydrochloride (HCl) inhalation solution. The jury awarded $18.0 million in monetary damages for lost profits and royalties, which had been accrued by the Company in 2011. The jury also found that Dey willfully infringed the subject patents. On May 29, 2012, the Company announced that Mylan Specialty L.P. had entered into a settlement agreement with Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. resolving the parties' patent litigation. According to the terms of the settlement, Mylan Specialty is licensed to continue sales of its concentrate product and will have a royalty-bearing license to sell its non-concentrate product upon receiving final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The settlement also releases Mylan from payment of the $18.0 million jury damage award to Sunovion. During the three months ended June 30, 2012, the Company has reversed the previously established accrual. Pursuant to the agreement, pending litigation has been dismissed. On April 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated a judgment of invalidity by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent infringement lawsuit by Eurand, Inc. (n/k/a Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc.), Cephalon, Inc., and Anesta AG against Mylan Inc. and MPI in relation to MPI’s abbreviated new drug application for extended-release cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride. On May 12, 2011, the District Court found, after trial, the patents-in-suit invalid as obvious. On May 13, 2011, MPI launched its cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride extended-release capsules. Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s finding of obviousness to the Federal Circuit, and on May 24, 2011, the District Court issued an injunction order enjoining Mylan from selling any additional cyclobenzaprine products pending the Federal Circuit’s decision. Plaintiffs were required to post a $10.0 million bond. Mylan appealed the District Court’s injunction and filed a motion to stay the injunction pending resolution of the appeal. On May 25, 2011, the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the injunction pending full briefing on Mylan’s motion to stay. On July 7, 2011, the Federal Circuit reinstated the injunction preventing further sales pending a decision on the appeal. On April 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the District Court’s invalidity judgment and dismissed without prejudice Mylan’s appeal of the injunction. The injunction will remain in place for 45-days post-mandate, or until further order of the District Court, whichever occurs sooner. The Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and on July 25, 2012, the petition was denied. In these and other situations, the Company has used its business judgment to decide to market and sell products, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) or other potential third party rights have not been finally resolved by the courts (i.e., an “at-risk launch” situation). The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, among other things, damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner and not necessarily by the profits earned by the infringer. In the case of willful infringement, the definition of which is subjective, such damages may be increased up to three times. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent products, patented branded products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than bioequivalent products. An adverse decision in cases involving an “at-risk launch” could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, including our results of operations and cash flows. Other Litigation Beaufour Ipsen Pharma (“Ipsen”) sued Merck Generiques (now known as Mylan S.A.S.) for unfair competition on October 11, 2007, following Mylan S.A.S.’s receipt of market authorization for Vitalogink earlier in 2007 (prior to Mylan’s acquisition of the former Merck Generics business). The Commercial Court of Paris dismissed Ipsen’s claim in a January 2008 decision. Ipsen filed an appeal of this decision to the Paris Appeals Court in March 2008. On April 28, 2011, the Paris Appeals Court reversed the decision of the Commercial Court of Paris and found that Mylan S.A.S. is liable for unfair competition and further ordered damages against Mylan S.A.S. in the amount of €17.0 million (approximately $24.0 million), which was subsequently paid by Mylan S.A.S. The Company believes the Court erred in its decision and has filed an appeal, believing that it has meritorious defenses to this claim, and is vigorously defending itself with respect to this matter. The appeal has been accepted and the case is being considered by a section bench of the Supreme Court. A hearing has been scheduled for September 11, 2012. The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings that are considered normal to its business, including but not limited to certain proceedings assumed as a result of the acquisition of the former Merck Generics business. While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such other proceedings, the ultimate outcome of any such proceeding is not currently expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Other Commitments Effective April 16, 2012, the Company entered into a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and its Local Union 8-957 AFL-CIO which agreement governs certain production and maintenance employees at the Company’s largest manufacturing site in Morgantown, West Virginia. In conjunction with the new collective bargaining agreement, the Company notified the trustees of the PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund, (the “Plan”), of its intention to withdraw from the Plan. The withdrawal is estimated to result in an aggregate withdrawal liability of approximately $8.4 million, which was recorded during the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

The Company is involved in various disputes, governmental and/or regulatory inquiries and proceedings and litigation matters that arise from time to time, some of which are described below. The Company is also party to certain litigation matters for which Merck KGaA has agreed to indemnify the Company, pursuant to the agreement by which Mylan acquired the former Merck Generics business.

While the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and intends to vigorously defend its position, the process of resolving matters through litigation or other means is inherently uncertain, and it is not possible to predict the ultimate resolution of any such proceeding. It is possible that an unfavorable resolution of any of the matters described below, or the inability or denial of Merck KGaA, another indemnitor or an insurer to pay an indemnified claim, could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Unless otherwise disclosed below, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of the respective litigation or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible losses. Legal costs are recorded as incurred and are classified in selling, general and administrative expenses in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Lorazepam and Clorazepate

On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”), and co-defendants Cambrex Corporation and Gyma Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in the amount of approximately $12.0 million, which has been accrued for by the Company. The jury found that Mylan and its co-defendants willfully violated Massachusetts, Minnesota and Illinois state antitrust laws in connection with API supply agreements entered into between the Company and its API supplier (Cambrex) and broker (Gyma) for two drugs, Lorazepam and Clorazepate, in 1997, and subsequent price increases on these drugs in 1998. The case was brought by four health insurers who opted out of earlier class action settlements agreed to by the Company in 2001 and represents the last remaining antitrust claims relating to Mylan’s 1998 price increases for Lorazepam and Clorazepate. Following the verdict, the Company filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law, a motion for a new trial, a motion to dismiss two of the insurers and a motion to reduce the verdict. On December 20, 2006, the Company’s motion for judgment as a matter of law and motion for a new trial were denied and the remaining motions were denied on January 24, 2008. In post-trial filings, the plaintiffs requested that the verdict be trebled and that request was granted on January 24, 2008. On February 6, 2008, a judgment was issued against Mylan and its co-defendants in the total amount of approximately $69.0 million, which, in the case of three of the plaintiffs, reflects trebling of the compensatory damages in the original verdict (approximately $11.0 million in total) and, in the case of the fourth plaintiff, reflects their amount of the compensatory damages in the original jury verdict plus doubling this compensatory damage award as punitive damages assessed against each of the defendants (approximately $58.0 million in total), some or all of which may be subject to indemnification obligations by Mylan. Plaintiffs are also seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and litigation costs in unspecified amounts and prejudgment interest of approximately $8.0 million. The Company and its co-defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and have challenged the verdict as legally erroneous on multiple grounds. The appeals were held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for prejudgment interest, which has been granted. Mylan has contested this ruling along with the liability finding and other damages awards as part of its appeal, which was filed in the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. On January 18, 2011, the Court of Appeals issued a judgment remanding the case to the District Court for further proceedings based on lack of diversity with respect to certain plaintiffs. On June 13, 2011, Mylan filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting review of the judgment of the D.C. Circuit. On October 3, 2011, the certiorari petition was denied. The case is now proceeding before the District Court where motion practice is currently pending. Plaintiffs have sought to voluntarily dismiss self-funded customers whose presence destroys the District Court's diversity jurisdiction, and have moved for a remittitur (reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages award. In connection with the Company’s appeal of the judgment, the Company submitted a surety bond underwritten by a third-party insurance company in the amount of $74.5 million. On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the surety bond reduced to $66.6 million to reflect the approximate remittitur amount requested by the plaintiffs.

Pricing and Medicaid Litigation

Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI and/or Mylan Institutional Inc. (formerly known as UDL Laboratories, Inc. and "MII"), together with many other pharmaceutical companies, have been named in civil lawsuits filed by state attorneys general (“AGs”) and municipal bodies within the state of New York alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by allegedly reporting “Average Wholesale Prices” and/or “Wholesale Acquisition Costs” that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants’ prescription drugs, causing state programs to overpay pharmacies and other providers. To date, Mylan, MPI and/or MII have been named as defendants in substantially similar civil lawsuits filed by the AGs of Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin, and also by the city of New York and approximately 40 counties across New York State. Several of these cases have been transferred to the AWP multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for pretrial proceedings. Other cases will likely be litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Each of the cases seeks money damages, civil penalties and/or double, treble or punitive damages, counsel fees and costs, equitable relief and/or injunctive relief. Mylan and its subsidiaries have denied liability and are defending each of these actions vigorously.

In May 2008, an amended complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts by a private plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Mylan, MPI, MII and several other generic manufacturers. The original complaint was filed under seal in April 2000, and Mylan, MPI and MII were added as parties in February 2001. The claims against Mylan, MPI, MII and the other generic manufacturers were severed from the April 2000 complaint (which remains under seal) as a result of the federal government’s decision not to intervene in the action as to those defendants. The complaint alleged violations of the False Claims Act and set forth allegations substantially similar to those alleged in the state AG cases mentioned in the preceding paragraph and purported to seek nationwide recovery of any and all alleged overpayment of the “federal share” under the Medicaid program, as well as treble damages and civil penalties. In December 2010, the Company completed a settlement of this case (except for the claims related to the California federal share) and the Texas state action mentioned above. This settlement resolved a significant portion of the damages claims asserted against Mylan, MPI and MII in the various pending pricing litigations. In addition, Mylan has reached settlements of the Alabama, Alaska, California (including the “federal share”), Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York state and county, South Carolina, and Utah state actions. The Company has also reached agreements in principle to settle the Louisiana and Oklahoma actions, which settlements are contingent upon the execution of definitive settlement documents. With regard to the remaining state actions, the Company continues to believe that it has meritorious defenses and is vigorously defending itself in those actions. The Company had accrued approximately $115.0 million at December 31, 2011. As a result of settlement payments of approximately $82.0 million and additional accruals of approximately $20.0 million during the six months ended June 30, 2012, the Company has a remaining accrual of approximately $55.0 million at June 30, 2012. The Company reviews the status of these actions on an ongoing basis, and from time to time, the Company may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that management believes are in the best interests of the Company. There are no assurances that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts that may be provided for. However, the range of reasonably possible loss above the amount provided for cannot be estimated.

Mylan Specialty (formerly known as Dey) was named as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and third-party payors. Mylan Specialty has reached a settlement of these class actions, which has been approved by the court and all claims have been dismissed. Additionally, a complaint was filed under seal by a plaintiff on behalf of the United States of America against Dey in August 1997. In August 2006, the Government filed its complaint-in-intervention and the case was unsealed in September 2006. The Government asserted that Dey was jointly liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Dey completed a settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Dey falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Dey, that Dey caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Dey caused Medicaid and Medicare to make overpayments on those claims.

Under the terms of the purchase agreement with Merck KGaA, Mylan is fully indemnified for these claims and Merck KGaA is entitled to any income tax benefit the Company realizes for any deductions of amounts paid for such pricing litigation. Under the indemnity, Merck KGaA is responsible for all settlement and legal costs, and, as such, these settlements had no impact on the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. At June 30, 2012, the Company has accrued approximately $67.9 million in other current liabilities, which represents its estimate of the remaining amount of anticipated income tax benefits due to Merck KGaA. Substantially all of Mylan Specialty’s known claims with respect to this pricing litigation have been settled.

Modafinil Antitrust Litigation and FTC Inquiry

Beginning in April 2006, Mylan and four other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by a variety of plaintiffs purportedly representing direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Modafinil and in a lawsuit filed by Apotex, Inc., a manufacturer of generic drugs, seeking approval to market a generic Modafinil product. These actions allege violations of federal and state laws in connection with the defendants’ settlement of patent litigation relating to Modafinil. On March 29, 2010, the Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Fact discovery closed on February 11, 2011. No date has been set for briefing on dispositive motions. Mylan is defending each of these actions vigorously.

In addition, by letter dated July 11, 2006, Mylan was notified by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) of an investigation relating to the settlement of the Modafinil patent litigation. In its letter, the FTC requested certain information from Mylan, MPI and Mylan Technologies, Inc. pertaining to the patent litigation and the settlement thereof. On March 29, 2007, the FTC issued a subpoena, and on April 26, 2007, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to Mylan, requesting additional information from the Company relating to the investigation. Mylan has cooperated fully with the government’s investigation and completed all requests for information. On February 13, 2008, the FTC filed a lawsuit against Cephalon in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the case has subsequently been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On July 1, 2010, the FTC issued a third party subpoena to Mylan, requesting documents in connection with its lawsuit against Cephalon. Mylan has responded to the subpoena. Mylan is not named as a defendant in the FTC’s lawsuit, although the complaint includes certain allegations pertaining to the Mylan/Cephalon settlement.

FTC Minocycline Inquiry

On May 1, 2012, the FTC issued a civil investigative demand to Mylan pertaining to an investigation being conducted to determine whether Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation, Mylan, and/or other generic companies engaged in unfair methods of competition with regard to Medicis' branded Solodyn products and generic Solodyn products, as well as the 2010 settlement of Medicis' patent infringement claims against Mylan and Matrix Laboratories Ltd. (n/k/a Mylan Laboratories Ltd). Mylan is cooperating with the FTC and is in the process of responding to the requests for information.

Digitek^® Recall

On April 25, 2008, Actavis Totowa LLC, a division of Actavis Group, announced a voluntary, nationwide recall of all lots and all strengths of Digitek (Digoxin tablets USP). Digitek was manufactured by Actavis and distributed in the United States by MPI and MII. The Company has tendered its defense and indemnity in all lawsuits and claims arising from this event to Actavis, and Actavis has accepted that tender, subject to a reservation of rights. While the Company is unable to estimate total potential costs with any degree of certainty, such costs could be significant. Following the recall, approximately 1,000 lawsuits were filed against Mylan, MII and Actavis. Most of these cases were transferred to the multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for pretrial proceedings. The remaining cases are being litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Actavis has reached settlements in principle with the plaintiffs in a majority of the claims and lawsuits. Mylan and MII did not contribute monetarily to the settlements, but were dismissed with prejudice from any settled cases. Any lawsuits in which the plaintiffs chose to opt out of the settlement continue to be litigated. As of July 11, 2012, approximately four plaintiffs who opted out of the settlement continue to pursue claims. An adverse outcome in these lawsuits or the inability or denial of Actavis to pay on an indemnified claim could have a materially negative impact on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows, although the range of reasonably possible loss cannot be estimated.

EU Commission Proceedings

On or around July 8, 2009, the European Commission (the “EU Commission” or the “Commission”) stated that it had initiated antitrust proceedings pursuant to Article 11(6) of Regulation No. 1/2003 and Article 2(1) of Regulation No. 773/2004 to explore possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC and Articles 53 and 54 of the EEA Agreement by Les Laboratoires Servier (“Servier”) as well as possible infringement of Article 81 EC by the Company’s Indian subsidiary, Mylan Laboratories Limited (formerly known as Matrix Laboratories Limited), and four other companies, each of which entered into agreements with Servier relating to the product Perindopril. Mylan Laboratories Limited is cooperating with the EU Commission in connection with the investigation. Mylan Laboratories Limited, Mylan S.A.S. and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. have received requests for information from the EU Commission in connection with this matter, and have responded and are cooperating with the Commission in this investigation. The EU Commission has indicated publicly that it intends to take further steps in connection with its investigation.

In addition, the EU Commission is conducting a pharmaceutical sector inquiry involving approximately 100 companies concerning the introduction of innovative and generic medicines. Mylan S.A.S. has responded to the questionnaires received in connection with the sector inquiry and has produced documents and other information in connection with the inquiry.

On October 6, 2009, the Company received notice that the EU Commission was initiating an investigation pursuant to Article 20(4) of Regulation No. 1/2003 to explore possible infringement of Articles 81 and 82 EC by the Company and its affiliates. Mylan S.A.S., acting on behalf of its Mylan affiliates, has produced documents and other information in connection with the inquiry and continues to respond to other requests for additional information. The Company is cooperating with the Commission in connection with the investigation, and no statement of objections has been filed against the Company in connection with the investigation.

On March 19, 2010, Mylan and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. received notice that the EU Commission had opened proceedings against Lundbeck with respect to alleged unilateral practices and/or agreements related to Citalopram in the European Economic Area. Mylan and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. have responded to requests for information from the EU Commission in connection with any agreements between Lundbeck and Generics [U.K.] Ltd. concerning Citalopram. Both companies have cooperated with the EU Commission. A Statement of Objections was issued to Lundbeck, Merck KGaA, Generics [U.K.] Limited, Arrow, Resolution Chemicals, Xelia Pharmaceuticals, Alpharma, A.L. Industrier and Ranbaxy on July 25, 2012. Generics [U.K.] Limited intends to respond to the Statement of Objections and vigorously defend itself against the allegations contained therein.

U.K. Office of Fair Trading

On August 12, 2011 Generics [U.K.] Ltd. received notice that the Office of Fair Trading was opening an investigation to explore the possible infringement of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 and 102 on the Functioning of the European Union, with respect to alleged agreements related to Paroxetine. Generics [U.K.] Ltd. has produced documents and information and continues to respond to additional requests for information in connection with this inquiry and is continuing to cooperate with the investigation. No statement of objections has been filed in connection with this investigation.

Product Liability

The Company is involved in a number of product liability lawsuits and claims related to alleged personal injuries arising out of certain products manufactured and/or distributed by the Company, including but not limited to its fentanyl transdermal system, phenytoin and Amnesteem^®. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and claims and is vigorously defending itself with respect to those matters. From time to time, the Company has agreed to settle or otherwise resolve certain lawsuits and claims on terms and conditions that are in the best interests of the Company. During 2010, the Company accrued $41.0 million in connection with certain settlements and certain remaining claims. The Company has paid approximately $18.2 million during the six months ended June 30, 2012 and approximately $15.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2011.

There are no assurances that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts that may be provided for. However, the range of reasonably possible loss above the amount provided for cannot be estimated.

Intellectual Property

On February 10, 2012, a jury verdict was rendered in a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. (f/k/a Sepracor Inc.) against Mylan Inc., MPI, Dey Inc. and Dey Pharma, L.P. (n/k/a Mylan Specialty L.P.) in relation to Dey’s abbreviated new drug application for levalbuterol hydrochloride (HCl) inhalation solution. The jury awarded $18.0 million in monetary damages for lost profits and royalties, which had been accrued by the Company in 2011. The jury also found that Dey willfully infringed the subject patents. On May 29, 2012, the Company announced that Mylan Specialty L.P. had entered into a settlement agreement with Sunovion Pharmaceuticals Inc. resolving the parties' patent litigation. According to the terms of the settlement, Mylan Specialty is licensed to continue sales of its concentrate product and will have a royalty-bearing license to sell its non-concentrate product upon receiving final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The settlement also releases Mylan from payment of the $18.0 million jury damage award to Sunovion. During the three months ended June 30, 2012, the Company has reversed the previously established accrual. Pursuant to the agreement, pending litigation has been dismissed.

On April 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated a judgment of invalidity by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent infringement lawsuit by Eurand, Inc. (n/k/a Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc.), Cephalon, Inc., and Anesta AG against Mylan Inc. and MPI in relation to MPI’s abbreviated new drug application for extended-release cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride. On May 12, 2011, the District Court found, after trial, the patents-in-suit invalid as obvious. On May 13, 2011, MPI launched its cyclobenzaprine hydrochloride extended-release capsules. Plaintiffs appealed the District Court’s finding of obviousness to the Federal Circuit, and on May 24, 2011, the District Court issued an injunction order enjoining Mylan from selling any additional cyclobenzaprine products pending the Federal Circuit’s decision. Plaintiffs were required to post a $10.0 million bond. Mylan appealed the District Court’s injunction and filed a motion to stay the injunction pending resolution of the appeal. On May 25, 2011, the Federal Circuit temporarily stayed the injunction pending full briefing on Mylan’s motion to stay. On July 7, 2011, the Federal Circuit reinstated the injunction preventing further sales pending a decision on the appeal. On April 16, 2012, the Federal Circuit reversed and vacated the District Court’s invalidity judgment and dismissed without prejudice Mylan’s appeal of the injunction. The injunction will remain in place for 45-days post-mandate, or until further order of the District Court, whichever occurs sooner. The Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and on July 25, 2012, the petition was denied.

In these and other situations, the Company has used its business judgment to decide to market and sell products, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) or other potential third party rights have not been finally resolved by the courts (i.e., an “at-risk launch” situation). The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include, among other things, damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner and not necessarily by the profits earned by the infringer. In the case of willful infringement, the definition of which is subjective, such damages may be increased up to three times. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent products, patented branded products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than bioequivalent products. An adverse decision in cases involving an “at-risk launch” could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, including our results of operations and cash flows.

Other Litigation

Beaufour Ipsen Pharma (“Ipsen”) sued Merck Generiques (now known as Mylan S.A.S.) for unfair competition on October 11, 2007, following Mylan S.A.S.’s receipt of market authorization for Vitalogink earlier in 2007 (prior to Mylan’s acquisition of the former Merck Generics business). The Commercial Court of Paris dismissed Ipsen’s claim in a January 2008 decision. Ipsen filed an appeal of this decision to the Paris Appeals Court in March 2008. On April 28, 2011, the Paris Appeals Court reversed the decision of the Commercial Court of Paris and found that Mylan S.A.S. is liable for unfair competition and further ordered damages against Mylan S.A.S. in the amount of €17.0 million (approximately $24.0 million), which was subsequently paid by Mylan S.A.S. The Company believes the Court erred in its decision and has filed an appeal, believing that it has meritorious defenses to this claim, and is vigorously defending itself with respect to this matter. The appeal has been accepted and the case is being considered by a section bench of the Supreme Court. A hearing has been scheduled for September 11, 2012.

The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings that are considered normal to its business, including but not limited to certain proceedings assumed as a result of the acquisition of the former Merck Generics business. While it is not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of such other proceedings, the ultimate outcome of any such proceeding is not currently expected to be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Other Commitments

Effective April 16, 2012, the Company entered into a five-year collective bargaining agreement with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union and its Local Union 8-957 AFL-CIO which agreement governs certain production and maintenance employees at the Company’s largest manufacturing site in Morgantown, West Virginia. In conjunction with the new collective bargaining agreement, the Company notified the trustees of the PACE Industry Union-Management Pension Fund, (the “Plan”), of its intention to withdraw from the Plan. The withdrawal is estimated to result in an aggregate withdrawal liability of approximately $8.4 million, which was recorded during the quarter ended June 30, 2012.