Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by Aspen and distributed by the Company in Israel. The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline (Israel) Ltd, and health care providers who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health care system in Israel. There is also a motion to approve a service to Aspen Bad Oldesloe GMBH, Germany, of one of the applications. The applications arise from the launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally allege that patients were not notified in a timely manner about the change in the formulation, about the potential for adverse events while transferring to the new formulation of Eltroxin and the need to perform blood tests after changing to the new formulation. The applications also generally allege that the failure to timely provide such notifications resulted in: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) injuries to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patient's lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation. Eight applications were transferred to one court which will decide whether to consolidate the applications and/or dismiss some of the applications. As this matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims. On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named Michael L. Warner (Warner) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, including the President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief Financial Officer, Judy Brown, among others. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain auction rate securities held by the Company, totaling approximately $18,000 in par value (the ARS), had been purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman). The plaintiff asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the seller of the ARS was material because after Lehman’s bankruptcy filing, on September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable to look to Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value. The complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys’ fees. On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several purported shareholders of the Company, namely CLAL Finance Batucha Investment Management, Ltd., The Phoenix Insurance Company, Ltd., Excellence Nessuah Mutual Funds Management, Ltd. and Excellence Nessuah Gemel & Pension, Ltd., as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On July 31, 2009, these Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped all claims against the individual defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and added a “control person” claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Company’s Audit Committee. The amended complaint asserted many of the same claims and allegations as the original pleading. It also alleged that the Company should have disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that Lehman had sold the ARS to the Company and had provided the allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009, which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008. The amended complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter, immediately following Lehman’s bankruptcy filing. On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants. On September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the “control person” claims against the members of the Company’s Audit Committee, but denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants. On October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs (who were the only plaintiffs named in the amended complaint) lacked standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws following a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply extraterritorially to the claims of foreign investors who purchased or sold securities on foreign stock exchanges. On December 23, 2010, a shareholder named Harel Insurance, Ltd. (Harel) filed a motion to intervene as an additional named plaintiff. Although Harel is a non-U.S. investor, it claims to have purchased the Company’s common stock on a U.S. exchange. On January 10, 2011, the original plaintiff, Warner, filed a motion renewing his previously withdrawn motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the then-Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, subject to the filing by Harel of an amended complaint alleging that Harel's purchases of Perrigo stock were made in the United States; (iv) ruled that Warner would be treated as a named plaintiff; and (v) left for later the selection of Lead Plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both Harel and Warner as named plaintiffs, alleging the same claims as in the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported class limited to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market or by other means involving transactions in the United States. The second amended complaint alleges that Harel purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market during the purported class period. Also on October 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking to appoint Harel and Warner as the new co-lead plaintiffs, subject to approval of the Court. On October 27, 2011, the Court approved this stipulation and issued an order appointing Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs. On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting numerous defenses. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and is actively pursuing the defense thereof. The Company believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations as reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements. In March and June of 2007, lawsuits were filed by three separate groups against both the State of Israel and the Council of Ramat Hovav in connection with waste disposal and pollution from several companies, including the Company, that have operations in the Ramat Hovav region of Israel. These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in the District Court of Beer-Sheva. The Council of Ramat Hovav, in June 2008, and the State of Israel, in November 2008, asserted third party claims against several companies, including the Company. The pleadings allege a variety of personal injuries arising out of the alleged environmental pollution. Neither the plaintiffs nor the third party claimants were required to specify a maximum amount of damages, but the pleadings allege damages in excess of $72,500, subject to foreign currency fluctuations between the Israeli shekel and the U.S. dollar. While the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims. In addition to the foregoing discussion, the Company has pending certain other legal actions and claims incurred in the normal course of business. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and/or is covered by insurance and is actively pursuing the defense thereof. The Company believes the resolution of all of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations as reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

During October and November 2011, nine applications to certify a class action lawsuit were filed in various courts in Israel related to Eltroxin, a prescription thyroid medication manufactured by Aspen and distributed by the Company in Israel. The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline (Israel) Ltd, and health care providers who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health care system in Israel. There is also a motion to approve a service to Aspen Bad Oldesloe GMBH, Germany, of one of the applications.

The applications arise from the launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally allege that patients were not notified in a timely manner about the change in the formulation, about the potential for adverse events while transferring to the new formulation of Eltroxin and the need to perform blood tests after changing to the new formulation. The applications also generally allege that the failure to timely provide such notifications resulted in: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) injuries to some patients resulting from an imbalance of thyroid functions that could have been avoided; and (c) harm resulting from the patient's lack of informed consent prior to the use of the reformulation.

Eight applications were transferred to one court which will decide whether to consolidate the applications and/or dismiss some of the applications. As this matter is in its early stages, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims.

On March 11, 2009, a purported shareholder of the Company named Michael L. Warner (Warner) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and certain of its officers and directors, including the President and Chief Executive Officer, Joseph Papa, and the Chief Financial Officer, Judy Brown, among others. The plaintiff sought to represent a class of purchasers of the Company’s common stock during the period between November 6, 2008 and February 2, 2009. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act). The plaintiff generally alleged that the Company misled investors by failing to disclose, prior to February 3, 2009, that certain auction rate securities held by the Company, totaling approximately $18,000 in par value (the ARS), had been purchased from Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (Lehman). The plaintiff asserted that omission of the identity of Lehman as the seller of the ARS was material because after Lehman’s bankruptcy filing, on September 15, 2008, the Company allegedly became unable to look to Lehman to repurchase the ARS at a price near par value. The complaint sought unspecified damages and unspecified equitable or injunctive relief, along with costs and attorneys’ fees.

On June 15, 2009, the Court appointed several purported shareholders of the Company, namely CLAL Finance Batucha Investment Management, Ltd., The Phoenix Insurance Company, Ltd., Excellence Nessuah Mutual Funds Management, Ltd. and Excellence Nessuah Gemel & Pension, Ltd., as Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On July 31, 2009, these Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped all claims against the individual defendants other than Joseph Papa and Judy Brown, and added a “control person” claim under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the members of the Company’s Audit Committee. The amended complaint asserted many of the same claims and allegations as the original pleading. It also alleged that the Company should have disclosed, prior to February 3, 2009, that Lehman had sold the ARS to the Company and had provided the allegedly inflated valuation of the ARS that the Company adopted in its Form 10-Q filing for the first quarter of fiscal 2009, which was filed with the SEC on November 6, 2008. The amended complaint also alleged that some portion of the write-down of the value of the ARS that the Company recognized in the second quarter of fiscal 2009 should have been taken in the prior quarter, immediately following Lehman’s bankruptcy filing. On September 28, 2009, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims against all defendants. On September 30, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed the “control person” claims against the members of the Company’s Audit Committee, but denied the motion to dismiss as to the remaining claims and defendants. On October 29, 2010, the defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the grounds that the Co-Lead Plaintiffs (who were the only plaintiffs named in the amended complaint) lacked standing to sue under the U.S. securities laws following a recent decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act does not apply extraterritorially to the claims of foreign investors who purchased or sold securities on foreign stock exchanges. On December 23, 2010, a shareholder named Harel Insurance, Ltd. (Harel) filed a motion to intervene as an additional named plaintiff. Although Harel is a non-U.S. investor, it claims to have purchased the Company’s common stock on a U.S. exchange. On January 10, 2011, the original plaintiff, Warner, filed a motion renewing his previously withdrawn motion to be appointed as Lead Plaintiff to replace the Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the then-Co-Lead Plaintiffs; (ii) ruled that any class that might ultimately be certified could only consist of persons who purchased their Perrigo shares on the NASDAQ market or by other means involving transactions in the United States; (iii) granted Harel's motion to intervene as a named plaintiff, subject to the filing by Harel of an amended complaint alleging that Harel's purchases of Perrigo stock were made in the United States; (iv) ruled that Warner would be treated as a named plaintiff; and (v) left for later the selection of Lead Plaintiffs. On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both Harel and Warner as named plaintiffs, alleging the same claims as in the amended complaint but on behalf of a purported class limited to those who purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market or by other means involving transactions in the United States. The second amended complaint alleges that Harel purchased Perrigo stock on the NASDAQ market during the purported class period. Also on October 7, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a stipulation seeking to appoint Harel and Warner as the new co-lead plaintiffs, subject to approval of the Court. On October 27, 2011, the Court approved this stipulation and issued an order appointing Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs. On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting numerous defenses. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit and is actively pursuing the defense thereof. The Company believes the resolution of this matter will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations as reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.

In March and June of 2007, lawsuits were filed by three separate groups against both the State of Israel and the Council of Ramat Hovav in connection with waste disposal and pollution from several companies, including the Company, that have operations in the Ramat Hovav region of Israel. These lawsuits were subsequently consolidated into a single proceeding in the District Court of Beer-Sheva. The Council of Ramat Hovav, in June 2008, and the State of Israel, in November 2008, asserted third party claims against several companies, including the Company. The pleadings allege a variety of personal injuries arising out of the alleged environmental pollution. Neither the plaintiffs nor the third party claimants were required to specify a maximum amount of damages, but the pleadings allege damages in excess of $72,500, subject to foreign currency fluctuations between the Israeli shekel and the U.S. dollar. While the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims, the Company cannot reasonably predict at this time the outcome or the liability, if any, associated with these claims.

In addition to the foregoing discussion, the Company has pending certain other legal actions and claims incurred in the normal course of business. The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to these lawsuits and/or is covered by insurance and is actively pursuing the defense thereof. The Company believes the resolution of all of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial condition and results of operations as reported in the accompanying consolidated financial statements.