COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Paragraph IV ANDA Filings On September 20, 2012, we announced that we had received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice under 21 U.S.C. 355(j) (a Paragraph IV Notice) from a generic sponsor of an ANDA for a generic drug listing Oxecta as the reference listed drug. Since such date, we have received similar Paragraph IV Notices from three other generic pharmaceutical companies that have filed ANDAs listing Oxecta as the reference drug. The Paragraph IV Notices refer to our U.S. Patent Numbers 7,201,920, 7,510,726 and 7,981,439, which cover our Aversion Technology and Oxecta. The Paragraph IV Notices state that each generic sponsor believes that such patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. Pfizer has advised us that it will not exercise its first right under the Pfizer Agreement to control the enforcement of our patents licensed to Pfizer for Oxecta against these generic sponsors. As a result, we will take appropriate action to enforce our intellectual property rights and on October 31, 2012, we initiated suit against each of Watson Laboratories, Inc. - Florida, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of our patent no. 7,510,726 listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. The commencement of such litigation prohibits the FDA from granting approval of the filed ANDAs until the earliest of 30 months from the date the FDA accepted the application for filing, or the conclusion of litigation. Reglan®/Metoclopramide Litigation Halsey Drug Company, as predecessor to us, has been named along with numerous other companies as a defendant in cases filed in three separate state coordinated litigations pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California, respectively captioned In re: Reglan®/Metoclopramide Mass Tort Litigation, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, January Term, 2010, No. 01997; In re: Reglan® Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Case No. 289, Master Docket No. ATL-L-3865-10; and Reglan®/Metoclopramide Cases, Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4631, Superior Court No.: CJC-10-004631. In this product liability litigation against numerous pharmaceutical product manufacturers and distributors, including us, plaintiffs claim injuries from their use of the Reglan brand of metoclopramide and generic metoclopramide. In the Pennsylvania state court mass tort proceeding, over 200 lawsuits have been filed against us and Halsey Drug Company alleging that plaintiffs developed neurological disorders as a result of their use of the Reglan brand and/or generic metoclopramide. Plaintiffs have filed approximately 150 lawsuits against us, but have served less than 50 individual lawsuits upon us in the New Jersey action. In the California action, we were not served with any complaints until the Spring of 2011 when a single complaint including over 400 plaintiffs was served. To date, Acura has not been served with any metoclopramide lawsuits in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia, New Jersey and California state courts. In the lawsuits filed to date, plaintiffs have not confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. We discontinued manufacture and distribution of generic metoclopramide more than 15 years ago. In addition, we believe the June 23, 2011 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA v. Mensing (“Mensing decision”) holding that state tort law failure to warn claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted by the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments and federal drug regulations will assist us in favorably resolving these cases. We have consistently maintained the position that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions. In New Jersey, Generic Defendants, including Acura, filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision, which the Court granted with a limited exception. In June 2012, the New Jersey trial court dismissed Acura with prejudice. In Philadelphia, and California, Generic Defendants, including Acura, have filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision. On November 18, 2011, the Philadelphia trial court denied Generic Defendants’ dispositive motion. In December 2011, the Generic Defendants appealed this ruling. The Pennsylvania Superior Court will hear argument on this appeal on October 31, 2012. A decision on this appeal should be issued later this year or in 2013, which could result in dismissal of all of the Philadelphia cases against Generic Defendants, although there can be no assurance in this regard. In addition, on April 17, 2012, the California trail court also denied Generic defendants’ dispositive motions and this ruling has been appealed. On September 26, 2012 the California Court of Appeal summarily denied this appeal. A further appeal to the California Supreme Court is pending. The trial court has scheduled a December 4, 2012 conference to further manage this litigation. Nonetheless, as noted above, plaintiffs have not confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. Therefore, action will be taken in an effort to dismiss Acura from these cases, although there can be no assurance in this regard. As any potential loss is neither probable nor estimable, we have not accrued for any potential loss related to this matter as of September 30, 2012. Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our insurance carrier. Statutory Minimum Withholding Tax Obligations Under the terms of our stock option plans and our 2005 RSU plan, our employees may elect to have shares withheld upon their option exercises and their RSU exchanges whereby requiring the Company to satisfy their statutory minimum withholding tax obligations from these transactions. During each of the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, approximately 0.3 million shares were withheld from these transactions in satisfaction of $1.0 million of withholding tax obligations.

NOTE 9 COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Paragraph IV ANDA Filings

On September 20, 2012, we announced that we had received a Paragraph IV Certification Notice under 21 U.S.C. 355(j) (a Paragraph IV Notice) from a generic sponsor of an ANDA for a generic drug listing Oxecta as the reference listed drug. Since such date, we have received similar Paragraph IV Notices from three other generic pharmaceutical companies that have filed ANDAs listing Oxecta as the reference drug. The Paragraph IV Notices refer to our U.S. Patent Numbers 7,201,920, 7,510,726 and 7,981,439, which cover our Aversion Technology and Oxecta. The Paragraph IV Notices state that each generic sponsor believes that such patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed. Pfizer has advised us that it will not exercise its first right under the Pfizer Agreement to control the enforcement of our patents licensed to Pfizer for Oxecta against these generic sponsors. As a result, we will take appropriate action to enforce our intellectual property rights and on October 31, 2012, we initiated suit against each of Watson Laboratories, Inc. - Florida, Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of our patent no. 7,510,726 listed in the FDA’s Orange Book. The commencement of such litigation prohibits the FDA from granting approval of the filed ANDAs until the earliest of 30 months from the date the FDA accepted the application for filing, or the conclusion of litigation.

Reglan®/Metoclopramide Litigation

Halsey Drug Company, as predecessor to us, has been named along with numerous other companies as a defendant in cases filed in three separate state coordinated litigations pending in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and California, respectively captioned In re: Reglan®/Metoclopramide Mass Tort Litigation, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas, January Term, 2010, No. 01997; In re: Reglan® Litigation, Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Atlantic County, Case No. 289, Master Docket No. ATL-L-3865-10; and Reglan®/Metoclopramide Cases, Superior Court of California, San Francisco County, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4631, Superior Court No.: CJC-10-004631. In this product liability litigation against numerous pharmaceutical product manufacturers and distributors, including us, plaintiffs claim injuries from their use of the Reglan brand of metoclopramide and generic metoclopramide. In the Pennsylvania state court mass tort proceeding, over 200 lawsuits have been filed against us and Halsey Drug Company alleging that plaintiffs developed neurological disorders as a result of their use of the Reglan brand and/or generic metoclopramide. Plaintiffs have filed approximately 150 lawsuits against us, but have served less than 50 individual lawsuits upon us in the New Jersey action. In the California action, we were not served with any complaints until the Spring of 2011 when a single complaint including over 400 plaintiffs was served. To date, Acura has not been served with any metoclopramide lawsuits in jurisdictions other than Philadelphia, New Jersey and California state courts.

In the lawsuits filed to date, plaintiffs have not confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. We discontinued manufacture and distribution of generic metoclopramide more than 15 years ago. In addition, we believe the June 23, 2011 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in PLIVA v. Mensing (“Mensing decision”) holding that state tort law failure to warn claims against generic drug companies are pre-empted by the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Act Amendments and federal drug regulations will assist us in favorably resolving these cases. We have consistently maintained the position that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend these actions.

In New Jersey, Generic Defendants, including Acura, filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision, which the Court granted with a limited exception. In June 2012, the New Jersey trial court dismissed Acura with prejudice.

In Philadelphia, and California, Generic Defendants, including Acura, have filed dispositive motions based on the Mensing decision. On November 18, 2011, the Philadelphia trial court denied Generic Defendants’ dispositive motion. In December 2011, the Generic Defendants appealed this ruling. The Pennsylvania Superior Court will hear argument on this appeal on October 31, 2012. A decision on this appeal should be issued later this year or in 2013, which could result in dismissal of all of the Philadelphia cases against Generic Defendants, although there can be no assurance in this regard.

In addition, on April 17, 2012, the California trail court also denied Generic defendants’ dispositive motions and this ruling has been appealed. On September 26, 2012 the California Court of Appeal summarily denied this appeal. A further appeal to the California Supreme Court is pending. The trial court has scheduled a December 4, 2012 conference to further manage this litigation. Nonetheless, as noted above, plaintiffs have not confirmed they ingested any of the generic metoclopramide manufactured by us. Therefore, action will be taken in an effort to dismiss Acura from these cases, although there can be no assurance in this regard.

As any potential loss is neither probable nor estimable, we have not accrued for any potential loss related to this matter as of September 30, 2012. Legal fees related to this matter are currently covered by our insurance carrier.

Statutory Minimum Withholding Tax Obligations

Under the terms of our stock option plans and our 2005 RSU plan, our employees may elect to have shares withheld upon their option exercises and their RSU exchanges whereby requiring the Company to satisfy their statutory minimum withholding tax obligations from these transactions. During each of the nine months ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, approximately 0.3 million shares were withheld from these transactions in satisfaction of $1.0 million of withholding tax obligations.