Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
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 or Strides Arcolab has agreed to indemnify the Company, pursuant to the respective sale and purchase agreements. 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, Strides Arcolab, or another indemnitor or insurer to pay an indemnified claim, could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows, and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline. 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 SG&A expenses in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. Lorazepam and Clorazepate On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, 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. On January 14, 2013, following limited court-ordered jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint containing additional factual averments with respect to the diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion to voluntarily dismiss 775 (of 1,387) self-funded customers whose presence would destroy the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur (reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages award. Mylan’s brief in response to the new factual averments in the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013. On July 29, 2014, the court granted both plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded customers. 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 in February 2008. On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the surety bond reduced to $66.6 million. Pricing and Medicaid Litigation Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI and/or Mylan Institutional Inc. (formerly known as UDL Laboratories, Inc. and hereafter “MII”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, together with many other pharmaceutical companies, were 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 (“AWP”) 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. Mylan, MPI and/or MII were 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 were 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 have been litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Each of the cases involved 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 have defended 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 reached settlements of the Alabama, Alaska, California (including the federal share), Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York state and county, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin state actions, which comprise the balance of all such lawsuits that have been filed against Mylan. The Company had accrued approximately $56.0 million at December 31, 2013. There were $54.3 million of settlement payments made during the nine months ended September 30, 2014. Dey L.P. (now known as Mylan Specialty L.P. and herein as “Mylan Specialty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and third-party payors. Mylan Specialty reached a settlement of these class actions, which was 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 Mylan Specialty 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 Mylan Specialty was jointly liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Mylan Specialty completed a settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Mylan Specialty falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Mylan Specialty, that Mylan Specialty caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Mylan Specialty 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 the claims in the preceding paragraph 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 Consolidated Statements of Operations. At September 30, 2014, the Company has accrued approximately $63.3 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. These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state laws in connection with the generic defendants’ settlement of patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery has now closed. On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs’ motion) dismissing plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. Additional motions remain pending. 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 Mylan’s settlement with Cephalon. Minocycline 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 Limited (now known as Mylan Laboratories Limited). Mylan is cooperating with the FTC and has responded to the requests for information. Beginning in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited, along with other drug manufacturers, were originally named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent direct and indirect purchasers of branded or generic Solodyn®, and assert violations of federal and state laws, including allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants of patent litigation relating to generic Solodyn®. Plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2014. Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended complaint. Pioglitazone Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos® and Actoplus Met®. These actions allege violations of state and federal competition laws in connection with the defendants’ settlements of patent litigation in 2010 relating to Actos® and Actoplus Met®. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10, 2014. European Commission Proceedings Perindopril On or around July 8, 2009, the European Commission (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, and four other companies, each of which entered into agreements with Servier relating to the product Perindopril. On July 30, 2012, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections to Servier SAS, Servier Laboratories Limited, Les Laboratories Servier, Adir, Biogaran, Krka, d.d. Novo mesto, Lupin Limited, Mylan Laboratories Limited, Mylan Inc., Niche Generics Limited, Teva UK Limited, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Unichem Laboratories Limited. Mylan Inc. and Mylan Laboratories Limited filed responses to the Statement of Objections. On July 9, 2014, the Commission issued a decision finding that Mylan Laboratories Limited and Mylan Inc., as well as the companies noted above (with the exception of Adir, a subsidiary of Servier), had violated European Union competition rules and fined Mylan Laboratories Limited approximately €17.2 million, including approximately €8.0 million jointly and severally with Mylan Inc. The Company has accrued $21.7 million related to this matter as of September 30, 2014, which was paid subsequent to September 30, 2014. The Company intends to appeal the decision to the General Court of the European Union. Citalopram On March 19, 2010, Mylan and Generics [U.K.] Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, received notice that the Commission had opened proceedings against Lundbeck with respect to alleged unilateral practices and/or agreements related to Citalopram in the European Economic Area. On July 25, 2012 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. Generics [U.K.] Limited filed a response to the Statement of Objections, and vigorously defended itself against allegations contained therein. On June 19, 2013, the Commission issued a decision finding that Generics [U.K.] Limited, as well as the companies noted above, had violated European Union competition rules and fined Generics [U.K.] Limited approximately €7.8 million, jointly and severally with Merck KGaA. Generics [U.K.] Limited has appealed the Commission’s decision to the General Court of the EU. Generics [U.K.] Limited has also sought indemnification from Merck KGaA with respect to the €7.8 million proportion of the fine for which Merck KGaA and Generics [U.K.] Limited were held jointly and severally liable. Merck KGaA has counterclaimed against Generics [U.K.] Limited seeking the same. The Company had accrued approximately $10.3 million related to this matter as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. U.K. Competition and Markets Authority On August 12, 2011, Generics [U.K.] Limited received notice that the Office of Fair Trading (subsequently changed to the Competition and Markets Authority (the “CMA”)) was opening an investigation to explore the possible infringement of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with respect to alleged agreements related to Paroxetine. On April 19, 2013, a Statement of Objections was issued to GlaxoSmithKline, Generics [U.K.] Limited, Alpharma and Ivax LLC. Generics [U.K.] Limited filed a response to the Statement of Objections, defending itself against the allegations contained therein. The CMA issued a Supplementary Statement of Objections to the above-referenced parties on October 21, 2014. A decision remains pending. South African Competition Commission Mylan's South African affiliate received a summons and a request for appearance and information, dated February 22, 2013, from the South African Competition Committee regarding a supply agreement between Aspen Pharmacare Holdings (Pty) Ltd. and Mylan Laboratories Limited pertaining to a fixed dose combination antiretroviral product. The summons was issued in respect of two complaints in connection with this agreement. An amended complaint and Initiation Statement were received on June 21, 2013. Mylan has produced documents and information in connection with this matter. On September 12, 2014, the Competition Commission notified Mylan that the complaint would not be referred to the Competition Tribunal, the adjudicative body for competition matters. The Competition Commission investigation has therefore been closed. 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, Propoxyphene and Alendronate. 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. The Company had accrued approximately $13.4 million at September 30, 2014 and $13.8 million at December 31, 2013. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued. Intellectual Property 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. (now known as 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 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 Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and on July 25, 2012, the petition was denied. The Company filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on October 23, 2012 and on January 14, 2013, the petition was denied. The case was remanded to the District Court for consideration of the issue of damages. On April 4, 2013, the District Court ordered that the effective date of approval of Mylan’s Abbreviated New Drug Application shall not be earlier than the later to expire of the patents-in-suit, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, and enjoined Mylan from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing its products until after the later of the expiration dates of the patents-in-suit, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. On September 23, 2014, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the dispute and on September 24, 2014 the case was dismissed. 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. The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include a reasonable royalty on sales or damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner. 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 any case could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Other Litigation 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 and Agila. 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.

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 or Strides Arcolab has agreed to indemnify the Company, pursuant to the respective sale and purchase agreements.

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, Strides Arcolab, or another indemnitor or insurer to pay an indemnified claim, could have a material effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations and/or cash flows, and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline. 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 SG&A expenses in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Lorazepam and Clorazepate

On June 1, 2005, a jury verdict was rendered against Mylan, 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. On January 14, 2013, following limited court-ordered jurisdictional discovery, the plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint containing additional factual averments with respect to the diversity of citizenship of the parties, along with a motion to voluntarily dismiss 775 (of 1,387) self-funded customers whose presence would destroy the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction. The plaintiffs also moved for a remittitur (reduction) of approximately $8.1 million from the full damages award. Mylan’s brief in response to the new factual averments in the complaint was filed on February 13, 2013. On July 29, 2014, the court granted both plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint and their motion to dismiss 775 self-funded customers.

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 in February 2008. On May 30, 2012, the District Court ordered the amount of the surety bond reduced to $66.6 million.

Pricing and Medicaid Litigation

Beginning in September 2003, Mylan, MPI and/or Mylan Institutional Inc. (formerly known as UDL Laboratories, Inc. and hereafter “MII”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, together with many other pharmaceutical companies, were 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 (“AWP”) 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. Mylan, MPI and/or MII were 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 were 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 have been litigated in the state courts in which they were filed. Each of the cases involved 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 have defended 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 reached settlements of the Alabama, Alaska, California (including the federal share), Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New York state and county, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah and Wisconsin state actions, which comprise the balance of all such lawsuits that have been filed against Mylan. The Company had accrued approximately $56.0 million at December 31, 2013. There were $54.3 million of settlement payments made during the nine months ended September 30, 2014.

Dey L.P. (now known as Mylan Specialty L.P. and herein as “Mylan Specialty”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, was named as a defendant in several class actions brought by consumers and third-party payors. Mylan Specialty reached a settlement of these class actions, which was 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 Mylan Specialty 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 Mylan Specialty was jointly liable with a codefendant and sought recovery of alleged overpayments, together with treble damages, civil penalties and equitable relief. Mylan Specialty completed a settlement of this action in December 2010. These cases all have generally alleged that Mylan Specialty falsely reported certain price information concerning certain drugs marketed by Mylan Specialty, that Mylan Specialty caused false claims to be made to Medicaid and to Medicare, and that Mylan Specialty 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 the claims in the preceding paragraph 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 Consolidated Statements of Operations. At September 30, 2014, the Company has accrued approximately $63.3 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. These actions allege violations of federal antitrust and state laws in connection with the generic defendants’ settlement of patent litigation with Cephalon relating to Modafinil. Discovery has now closed. On June 23, 2014, the court granted the defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment (and denied the corresponding plaintiffs’ motion) dismissing plaintiffs’ claims that the defendants had engaged in an overall conspiracy to restrain trade. Additional motions remain pending.

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 Mylan’s settlement with Cephalon.

Minocycline

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 Limited (now known as Mylan Laboratories Limited). Mylan is cooperating with the FTC and has responded to the requests for information.

Beginning in July 2013, Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited, along with other drug manufacturers, were originally named as defendants in civil lawsuits filed by a variety of plaintiffs in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the District of Arizona, and the District of Massachusetts. Those lawsuits were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs purport to represent direct and indirect purchasers of branded or generic Solodyn®, and assert violations of federal and state laws, including allegations in connection with separate settlements by Medicis with each of the other defendants of patent litigation relating to generic Solodyn®. Plaintiffs’ consolidated amended complaint was filed on September 12, 2014. Mylan and Mylan Laboratories Limited are no longer named defendants in the consolidated amended complaint.

Pioglitazone

Beginning in December 2013, Mylan, Takeda, and several other drug manufacturers have been named as defendants in civil lawsuits consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by plaintiffs which purport to represent indirect purchasers of branded or generic Actos® and Actoplus Met®. These actions allege violations of state and federal competition laws in connection with the defendants’ settlements of patent litigation in 2010 relating to Actos® and Actoplus Met®. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 22, 2014. Mylan and the other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint on October 10, 2014.

European Commission Proceedings

Perindopril

On or around July 8, 2009, the European Commission (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, and four other companies, each of which entered into agreements with Servier relating to the product Perindopril. On July 30, 2012, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections to Servier SAS, Servier Laboratories Limited, Les Laboratories Servier, Adir, Biogaran, Krka, d.d. Novo mesto, Lupin Limited, Mylan Laboratories Limited, Mylan Inc., Niche Generics Limited, Teva UK Limited, Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Teva Pharmaceuticals Europe B.V. and Unichem Laboratories Limited. Mylan Inc. and Mylan Laboratories Limited filed responses to the Statement of Objections. On July 9, 2014, the Commission issued a decision finding that Mylan Laboratories Limited and Mylan Inc., as well as the companies noted above (with the exception of Adir, a subsidiary of Servier), had violated European Union competition rules and fined Mylan Laboratories Limited approximately €17.2 million, including approximately €8.0 million jointly and severally with Mylan Inc. The Company has accrued $21.7 million related to this matter as of September 30, 2014, which was paid subsequent to September 30, 2014. The Company intends to appeal the decision to the General Court of the European Union.

Citalopram

On March 19, 2010, Mylan and Generics [U.K.] Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company, received notice that the Commission had opened proceedings against Lundbeck with respect to alleged unilateral practices and/or agreements related to Citalopram in the European Economic Area. On July 25, 2012 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. Generics [U.K.] Limited filed a response to the Statement of Objections, and vigorously defended itself against allegations contained therein. On June 19, 2013, the Commission issued a decision finding that Generics [U.K.] Limited, as well as the companies noted above, had violated European Union competition rules and fined Generics [U.K.] Limited approximately €7.8 million, jointly and severally with Merck KGaA. Generics [U.K.] Limited has appealed the Commission’s decision to the General Court of the EU. Generics [U.K.] Limited has also sought indemnification from Merck KGaA with respect to the €7.8 million proportion of the fine for which Merck KGaA and Generics [U.K.] Limited were held jointly and severally liable. Merck KGaA has counterclaimed against Generics [U.K.] Limited seeking the same. The Company had accrued approximately $10.3 million related to this matter as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible losses at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued.

U.K. Competition and Markets Authority

On August 12, 2011, Generics [U.K.] Limited received notice that the Office of Fair Trading (subsequently changed to the Competition and Markets Authority (the “CMA”)) was opening an investigation to explore the possible infringement of the Competition Act 1998 and Article 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, with respect to alleged agreements related to Paroxetine. On April 19, 2013, a Statement of Objections was issued to GlaxoSmithKline, Generics [U.K.] Limited, Alpharma and Ivax LLC. Generics [U.K.] Limited filed a response to the Statement of Objections, defending itself against the allegations contained therein. The CMA issued a Supplementary Statement of Objections to the above-referenced parties on October 21, 2014. A decision remains pending.

South African Competition Commission

Mylan's South African affiliate received a summons and a request for appearance and information, dated February 22, 2013, from the South African Competition Committee regarding a supply agreement between Aspen Pharmacare Holdings (Pty) Ltd. and Mylan Laboratories Limited pertaining to a fixed dose combination antiretroviral product. The summons was issued in respect of two complaints in connection with this agreement. An amended complaint and Initiation Statement were received on June 21, 2013. Mylan has produced documents and information in connection with this matter. On September 12, 2014, the Competition Commission notified Mylan that the complaint would not be referred to the Competition Tribunal, the adjudicative body for competition matters. The Competition Commission investigation has therefore been closed.

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, Propoxyphene and Alendronate. 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. The Company had accrued approximately $13.4 million at September 30, 2014 and $13.8 million at December 31, 2013. It is reasonably possible that we will incur additional losses above the amount accrued but we cannot estimate a range of such reasonably possible at this time. There are no assurances, however, that settlements reached and/or adverse judgments received, if any, will not exceed amounts accrued.

Intellectual Property

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. (now known as 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 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 Company filed a petition for rehearing en banc and on July 25, 2012, the petition was denied. The Company filed a petition for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on October 23, 2012 and on January 14, 2013, the petition was denied. The case was remanded to the District Court for consideration of the issue of damages. On April 4, 2013, the District Court ordered that the effective date of approval of Mylan’s Abbreviated New Drug Application shall not be earlier than the later to expire of the patents-in-suit, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, and enjoined Mylan from manufacturing, using, offering to sell, selling, or importing its products until after the later of the expiration dates of the patents-in-suit, unless otherwise ordered by the Court. On September 23, 2014, the parties executed a settlement agreement resolving the dispute and on September 24, 2014 the case was dismissed.

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. The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement may include a reasonable royalty on sales or damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner. 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 any case could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Other Litigation

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 and Agila. 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.