Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 30, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies [Text Block]	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Eltroxin 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 a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health care system in Israel. The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events 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. All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the consolidated motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions; however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent. A hearing on whether or not to certify the consolidated application is scheduled for September 2013. 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. U.S. Securities Litigation 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 other purported shareholders of the Company, rather than Warner, as co-lead plaintiffs (the "Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs"). On July 31, 2009, these Original 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 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 Original 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 then-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 purported shareholder named Harel Insurance, Ltd. ("Harel") filed a motion to intervene as an additional named plaintiff. 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 Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs. On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the Original 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; and (iv) ruled that Warner would also be treated as a named plaintiff. On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both Harel and Warner, 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. On October 27, 2011, the Court approved a stipulation appointing Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs (the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”). On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting numerous defenses. On September 7, 2012, the Court, pursuant to a stipulation, dismissed all claims against Joseph Papa and Judy Brown. Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with counsel for the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in an effort to move the matter to a quicker resolution and avoid the costs and distractions of protracted litigation. As a result of these discussions, the Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the case with payment by the Company's insurer of $1,787 to cover all costs of the settlement, subject to Court approval. On December 27, 2012, the Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. On January 28, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed class action settlement and ordered that notice of the proposed settlement be provided to the members of the proposed shareholder class and set a deadline for class members either to object to the settlement or to exclude themselves (or “opt out”) of the settlement class. The Court also scheduled a fairness hearing for May 17, 2013 to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and thus merits final approval. There can be no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved by the Court. Regardless of whether the proposed settlement is approved, 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. Ramat Hovav 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. On January 9, 2013, the District Court of Beer-Sheva ruled in favor of the Company. On February 20, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. While the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims if appealed, 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

Eltroxin

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 a third party and distributed in Israel by Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd. The respondents include Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and/or Perrigo Israel Agencies Ltd., the manufacturers of the product, and various health care providers who provide health care services as part of the compulsory health care system in Israel.

The nine applications arose from the 2011 launch of a reformulated version of Eltroxin in Israel. The applications generally alleged that the respondents (a) failed to timely inform patients, pharmacists and physicians about the change in the formulation; and (b) failed to inform physicians about the need to monitor patients taking the new formulation in order to confirm patients were receiving the appropriate dose of the drug. As a result, claimants allege they incurred the following damages: (a) purchases of product that otherwise would not have been made by patients had they been aware of the reformulation; (b) adverse events 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.

All nine applications were transferred to one court in order to determine whether to consolidate any of the nine applications. On July 19, 2012, the court dismissed one of the applications and ordered that the remaining eight applications be consolidated into one application. On September 19, 2012, a consolidated motion to certify the eight individual motions was filed by lead counsel for the claimants. Generally, the allegations in the consolidated motion are the same as those set forth in the individual motions; however, the consolidated motion excluded the manufacturer of the reformulated Eltroxin as a respondent. A hearing on whether or not to certify the consolidated application is scheduled for September 2013. 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.

U.S. Securities Litigation

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 other purported shareholders of the Company, rather than Warner, as co-lead plaintiffs (the "Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs"). On July 31, 2009, these Original 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 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 Original 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 then-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 purported shareholder named Harel Insurance, Ltd. ("Harel") filed a motion to intervene as an additional named plaintiff. 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 Original Co-Lead Plaintiffs.

On September 28, 2011, the Court granted defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. The Court (i) dismissed the claims of the Original 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; and (iv) ruled that Warner would also be treated as a named plaintiff.

On October 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on behalf of both Harel and Warner, 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. On October 27, 2011, the Court approved a stipulation appointing Harel and Warner as co-lead plaintiffs (the “Co-Lead Plaintiffs”).

On November 21, 2011, the defendants answered the second amended complaint, denying all allegations of wrongdoing and asserting numerous defenses. On September 7, 2012, the Court, pursuant to a stipulation, dismissed all claims against Joseph Papa and Judy Brown.

Although the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses to this lawsuit, the Company engaged in settlement discussions with counsel for the Co-Lead Plaintiffs in an effort to move the matter to a quicker resolution and avoid the costs and distractions of protracted litigation. As a result of these discussions, the Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle the case with payment by the Company's insurer of $1,787 to cover all costs of the settlement, subject to Court approval. On December 27, 2012, the Company and the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation of Settlement and a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. On January 28, 2013, the Court preliminarily approved the proposed class action settlement and ordered that notice of the proposed settlement be provided to the members of the proposed shareholder class and set a deadline for class members either to object to the settlement or to exclude themselves (or “opt out”) of the settlement class. The Court also scheduled a fairness hearing for May 17, 2013 to determine whether the settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate and thus merits final approval. There can be no assurance that the proposed settlement will be approved by the Court. Regardless of whether the proposed settlement is approved, 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.

Ramat Hovav

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. On January 9, 2013, the District Court of Beer-Sheva ruled in favor of the Company. On February 20, 2013, the plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Supreme Court. While the Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims if appealed, 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.