Commitments, Contingencies And Other Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2011
Commitments, Contingencies And Other Matters
Commitments, Contingencies And Other Matters	Note 14 - Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters: Legal Proceedings Unless otherwise indicated in the details provided below, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome or the effects of the litigations described below. The outcome of these litigations could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies; however, unless otherwise indicated below, at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these legal proceedings. From time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in the best interests of the Company. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. Corporate Litigation We and certain of our former executive officers have been named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006. The lawsuits followed our July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of our financial statements and allege that we and certain members of our then management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and results of operations. The class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 23, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended complaint. On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff. We and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the Amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated class action. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification which we and the other defendants intend to oppose. Following the announcement of our agreement to acquire Edict Pharmaceuticals Private Limited ("Edict"), a Chennai, India-based developer and manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals, Gavis Pharma LLC ("Gavis"), an affiliate of Novel Laboratories, Inc. and a former shareholder of Edict, filed a lawsuit on June 29, 2011, in the Superior Court for the State of New Jersey, Somerset County, against us, Edict, and the shareholders of Edict, seeking to enjoin the closing of our acquisition of Edict and money damages. Gavis asserts claims against certain Edict shareholders for fraudulent inducement in connection with Gavis's 2009 decision to sell its equity interest in Edict; against Edict and certain Edict shareholders for breach of contract; and against us for tortious interference with contract for entering into our agreement to acquire Edict. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and have agreed by stipulation to delay closing our acquisition of Edict until the Court renders a ruling on the plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, scheduled for hearing on August 3, 2011. The defendants' motions to dismiss have been scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2011. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Gavis. Patent Related Matters On April 28, 2006, CIMA Labs, Inc. ("CIMA") and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. ("Schwarz Pharma") filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CIMA and Schwarz Pharma each have alleged that we infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,024,981 (the "'981 patent") and 6,221,392 (the "'392 patent") by submitting a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of alprazolam orally disintegrating tablets. CIMA owns the '981 and '392 patents and Schwarz Pharma is CIMA's exclusive licensee. The two lawsuits were consolidated on January 29, 2007. In response to the lawsuit, we have answered and counterclaimed denying CIMA's and Schwarz Pharma's infringement allegations, asserting that the '981 and '392 patents are not infringed and are invalid and/or unenforceable. All 40 claims in the '981 patent were rejected in two non-final office actions in a reexamination proceeding at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") on February 24, 2006 and on February 24, 2007. The '392 patent is also the subject of a reexamination proceeding. On July 10, 2008, the USPTO rejected with finality all claims pending in both the '392 and '981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the Examiner's rejection of all claims in the '981 patent. On November 25, 2009, plaintiffs requested a rehearing before the USPTO Board of Appeals regarding the '981 patent. On March 24, 2011, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the '981 patent. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims. We entered into a licensing agreement with developer Paddock Laboratories, Inc. ("Paddock") to market testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Unimed") product Androgel®. As a result of the filing of an ANDA, Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco ("Besins"), co-assignees of the patent-in-suit, filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement (the "Paddock litigation"). On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA for the testosterone 1% gel, and the Paddock litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that terminates all on-going litigation and permits us to launch the generic version of the product no earlier than August 31, 2015, and no later than February 28, 2016, assuring our ability to market a generic version of Androgel® well before the expiration of the patents at issue. On March 7, 2007, we were issued a Civil Investigative Demand seeking information and documents in connection with the court-approved settlement in 2006 of the patent dispute. On January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement in the Paddock litigation, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs' complaints beginning in February 2009. On April 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Par's motion to transfer the FTC lawsuit and the private plaintiffs' complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On July 20, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the FTC's case and on September 1, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs' cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and on February 23, 2010, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. On June 10, 2010, the FTC appealed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On May 13, 2011, oral argument was held before the Court of Appeal and we currently await the Court's decision. We believe we have complied with all applicable laws in connection with the court-approved settlement and intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions. On July 6, 2007, Sanofi-Aventis and Debiopharm, S.A. filed a lawsuit against us and our development partner, MN Pharmaceuticals ("MN"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,338,874 (the "'874 patent") and 5,716,988 (the "'988 patent") after we and MN submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 50 mg/10 ml, 100 mg/20 ml, and 200 mg/40 ml oxaliplatin by injection. On January 14, 2008, following MN's amendment of its ANDA to include oxaliplatin injectable 5 mg/ml, 40 ml vial, Sanofi-Aventis filed a complaint asserting infringement of the '874 and the '988 patents. MN and we filed our Answer and Counterclaim on February 20, 2008. On June 18, 2009, the District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to several defendants, including us, on the '874 patent, but to date has not rendered a summary judgment decision regarding the '988 patent. On September 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. On September 24, 2009, Sanofi-Aventis filed a motion for preliminary injunction against defendants who entered the market following the District Court's summary judgment ruling. On November 19, 2009, the District Court dismissed all pending motions for summary judgment with possibility of the motions being renewed upon letter request to the Court. On April 14, 2010, the District Court entered a consent judgment and order agreed to by us, MN, and the plaintiffs, which agreement settled the pending litigation. In view of this agreement, MN and we will enter the market with generic Eloxatin on August 9, 2012, or earlier in certain circumstances. On October 1, 2007, Elan Corporation, PLC ("Elan") filed a lawsuit against us and our development partners, IntelliPharmaCeutics Corp. and IntelliPharmaCeutics Ltd. ("IPC"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On October 5, 2007, Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis Pharma AG ("Novartis") filed a lawsuit against IPC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because IPC and we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. On March 5, 2010 and March 15, 2010, the U.S. District Courts for the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware, respectively, entered stays of the litigation between plaintiffs and us and IPC in view of settlement agreements reached by the parties. The settlement agreement terms are confidential. On March 25, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC ("Elan") filed a lawsuit against us and our development partners, IntelliPharmaceutics Corp. and IntelliPharmaCeutics Ltd. ("IPC") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") and Novartis filed a lawsuit against IPC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because IPC and we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits. On May 27, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC ("Elan") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") and Novartis filed a lawsuit against IPC (in error, subsequently amended to Par) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because IPC and we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits. On September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. ("Santarus") and The Curators of the University of Missouri ("Missouri") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. On March 4, 2008, the cases pertaining to our ANDAs for omeprazole capsules and omeprazole oral suspension were consolidated for all purposes. The District Court conducted a bench trial from July 13-17, 2009, and found for Santarus only on the issue of infringement, while not rendering an opinion on the issues of invalidity and unenforceability. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that plaintiffs' patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. On May 17, 2010, Santarus filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appealing the District Court's decision of invalidity of the plaintiffs' patents. On May 27, 2010, we filed our notice of cross-appeal to the Court of Appeals, appealing the District Court's decision of enforceability of plaintiffs' patents. On July 1, 2010, we launched our generic Omeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate product. Oral argument for the appeal was held on May 2, 2011. We will continue to vigorously defend the appeal. On December 11, 2007, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, AstraZeneca UK Ltd., IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges patent infringement because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg rosuvastatin calcium tablets. On June 29, 2010, after an eight day bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against us, stating that the plaintiffs' patents were infringed, and not invalid or unenforceable. On August 11, 2010, we filed our notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appealing the District Court's decision. On December 15, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss a case brought by AstraZeneca asserting we infringed its rosuvastatin process patents. On April 25, 2011, we filed our final appeal brief and await an oral hearing date for the appeal. We intend to defend all of these actions vigorously. On November 14, 2008, Pozen, Inc. ("Pozen") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,060,499; 6,586,458; and 7,332,183, because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500 mg/85 mg naproxen sodium/sumatriptan succinate oral tablets. We joined GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") as a counterclaim defendant in this litigation. On April 28, 2009, GSK was dismissed from the case by the Court, but will be bound by the Court's decision and will be required to produce witnesses and materials during discovery. A four day bench trial was held from October 12 through October 15, 2010. On April 14, 2011, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to Pozen that prohibits us from launching our generic naproxen /sumatriptan product before the issuance of a final decision in the case. We are awaiting the Court's final decision. On April 29, 2009, Pronova BioPharma ASA ("Pronova") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,502,077 and 5,656,667 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. On June 8, 2010, a new patent, U.S. 7,732,488, which was later listed in the Orange Book, was issued to Pronova. A second case, involving the claims of the '488 patent and two other patents not listed in the Orange Book and asserted by the plaintiffs, has a trial date set for January 3, 2012. A bench trial in the first case took place from March 29, 2011 to April 7, 2011. On July 25, 2011, a stipulation was submitted to the court dismissing the second case without prejudice. We intend to continue to defend this action vigorously and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Pronova. On July 1, 2009, Alcon Research Ltd. ("Alcon") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,510,383; 5,631,287; 5,849,792; 5,889,052; 6,011,062; 6,503,497; and 6,849,253 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 0.004% travoprost ophthalmic solutions and 0.004% travoprost ophthalmic solutions (preserved). We filed an answer on August 21, 2009. The Court rescheduled the end of fact discovery for December 31, 2010 and the end of expert discovery for May 9, 2011. Trial has yet to be rescheduled. On July 1, 2011, we, along with plaintiffs and co-defendants, submitted the joint pre-trial order. We intend to defend this action vigorously and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Alcon. On August 5, 2010, Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma filed a lawsuit against us and our partner EMET Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,170 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 400 mg delayed-release oral tablet of mesalamine. We filed an answer and counterclaims on August 25, 2010, and an initial Rule 16 conference was held on November 10, 2010. On March 29, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss our counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,171. We intend to appeal that decision. Expert discovery closed July 5, 2011, and the close of fact discovery has been scheduled by the Court for August 5, 2011. A Markman hearing has been scheduled for August 15, 2011. We intend to defend this action vigorously and pursue all of our defenses and counterclaims against Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma. On September 20, 2010, Schering-Plough HealthCare Products ("Schering-Plough"), Santarus, Inc. ("Santarus"), and the Curators of the University of Missouri filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos., 6,699,885; 6,489,346; 6,645,988; and 7,399,772 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 20mg/1100 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsule, a version of Schering-Plough's Zegerid OTC®. We have previously received a decision of invalidity with respect to all of these patents in our case against Santarus and Missouri with respect to the prescription version of this product, which decision is presently on appeal. On November 9, 2010, we entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs to stay litigation on the OTC product pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the prescription product appeal, and the parties have agreed to be bound by such decision for purposes of the OTC product litigation. We intend to pursue our appeal and defend this action vigorously. On September 22, 2010, Biovail Laboratories filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,569,610; 7,572,935; 7,649,019; 7,553,992; 7,671,094; 7,241,805; 7,645,802; 7,662,407; and 7,645,901 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of extended-release tablets of 174 mg and 348 mg bupropion hydrobromide. On November 10, 2010, we filed our answer to the complaint. On November 22, 2010, the Court set a June 30, 2011 deadline for all discovery. On March 7, 2011, the Court reset the deadline for all discovery to May 18, 2011. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On October 4, 2010, UCB Manufacturing, Inc. ("UCB") filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex, naming us, our development partner Tris Pharma, and Tris Pharma's head of research and development, Yu-Hsing Tu. The complaint alleges that Tris and Tu misappropriated UCB's trade secrets and, by their actions, breached contracts and agreements to which UCB, Tris, and Tu were bound. The complaint further alleges unfair competition against Tris, Tu, and us relating to the parties' manufacture and marketing of generic Tussionex®. On October 6, 2010, the Court denied UCB's petition for a temporary restraining order against us and Tris and set a schedule for discovery during which UCB must substantiate its claims. On December 23, 2010, the Court denied UCB's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that UCB's alleged trade secrets were known to the public and not misappropriated. On June 2, 2011, the Court granted Tris' motion for summary judgment dismissing UCB's claims and UCB appealed the Court's order on June 22, 2011. We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit and any appeal by plaintiffs. On February 2, 2011, Somaxon Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,211,229 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 3 mg equivalent and 6 mg equivalent doxepin hydrochloride. We filed our answer on February 23, 2011. On June 6, 2011, our case was consolidated in the same Court with that of the other defendants who filed ANDAs on this product. The Court has scheduled fact discovery to end on April 6, 2012; expert discovery to end on September 7, 2012; and set a "trial-ready" date of February 19, 2013. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On March 23, 2011, we filed a declaratory judgment action against UCB, Inc. and UCB Pharma SA ("UCB") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting that the Court render a judgment of invalidity and/or non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,858,122 and 7,863,316 in view of our eventual marketing of levetiracetam extended release oral tablets, 500 mg and 750 mg pursuant to our filed ANDA that was accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification. On June 8, 2011, we filed our answer to UCB's counterclaims and submitted our joint Rule 26(f) report with the court on July 18, 2011. We intend to vigorously prosecute this action against UCB. Industry Related Matters Beginning in September 2003, we, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in actions brought by a number of state Attorneys General and municipal bodies within the state of New York, as well as a federal qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States by the pharmacy Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. ("Ven-A-Care") alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting "Average Wholesale Prices" ("AWP") and/or "Wholesale Acquisition Costs" that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants' prescription drugs. To date, we have been named as a defendant in substantially similar civil law suits filed by the Attorneys General of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, and also by the city of New York, 46 counties across New York State and Ven-A-Care. These cases generally seek some combination of actual damages, and/or double damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of excessive profits, restitution, disbursements, counsel fees and costs, litigation expenses, investigative costs, injunctive relief, punitive damages, imposition of a constructive trust, accounting of profits or gains derived through the alleged conduct, expert fees, interest and other relief that the court deems proper. Several of these cases have been transferred to the AWP multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for pre-trial proceedings. The case brought by the state of Mississippi will be litigated in the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi. The other cases will likely be litigated in the state or federal courts in which they were filed. In the Utah suit, the time for responding to the complaint has not yet elapsed. The Hawaii suit was settled on August 25, 2010 for $2,250 thousand. The Massachusetts suit was settled on December 17, 2010 for $500 thousand. The Alabama suit was settled on January 5, 2011 for $2,500 thousand. The Idaho suit was settled on March 25, 2011 for $1,700 thousand. On April 27, 2011, we reached a settlement in principle to resolve claims brought by Ven-A-Care, Texas, and Florida, under federal and state law, as well as Alaska, South Carolina, and Kentucky under state law for $154,000 thousand. Upon execution of definitive settlement documents and government and court approvals, the settlement will resolve a lawsuit relating to federal contributions to state Medicaid programs in 49 states (excluding Illinois), and claims of Texas, Florida, Alaska, South Carolina and Kentucky relating to their Medicaid programs. The settlement in principal will eliminate the majority of the alleged damages asserted against us in the various drug pricing litigations and removes all trials that had been scheduled to date. On June 2, 2011, we reached a settlement in principle to resolve claims brought by the city of New York, New York Counties and the state of Iowa under respective state law for $23,000 thousand. The remaining matters have yet to be scheduled for trial. We have accrued a $195,400 thousand reserve under the caption "Accrued legal settlements" on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2011, in connection with the April 27, 2011, settlement in principal and the remaining AWP actions. In each of the remaining matters, we have either moved to dismiss the complaints or answered the complaints denying liability. We will continue to defend or explore settlement opportunities in other jurisdictions as we feel are in our best interest under the circumstances presented in those jurisdictions. However, we can give no assurance that we will be able to settle the remaining actions on terms that we deem reasonable, or that such settlements or adverse judgments, if entered, will not exceed the amount of the reserve. In addition, the Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the United States Office of Personnel Management (the "USOPM") have issued subpoenas, and the Attorneys General of Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have issued civil investigative demands, to us. The demands generally request documents and information pertaining to allegations that certain of our sales and marketing practices caused pharmacies to substitute ranitidine capsules for ranitidine tablets, fluoxetine tablets for fluoxetine capsules, and two 7.5 mg buspirone tablets for one 15 mg buspirone tablet, under circumstances in which some state Medicaid programs at various times reimbursed the new dosage form at a higher rate than the dosage form being substituted. We have provided documents in response to these subpoenas to the respective Attorneys General and the USOPM. During the second quarter of 2011, we continued to engage the respective Attorneys General, the USOPM and the Department of Justice, led by the U.S. Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois, in discussions concerning these allegations, and we will continue to cooperate if called upon to do so. Department of Justice Matter On March 19, 2009, we were served with a subpoena by the Department of Justice requesting documents related to Strativa's marketing of Megace® ES. The subpoena indicated that the Department of Justice is currently investigating promotional practices in the sales and marketing of Megace® ES. We believe that our marketing of Megace® ES has complied with all applicable laws and we have provided, or are in the process of providing, documents in response to this subpoena to the Department of Justice and will continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice in this inquiry if called upon to do so. Investigations of this type often result in settlements, including monetary amounts based on an agreed upon percentage of sales of the product at issue in the investigation. Other We are, from time to time, a party to certain other litigations, including product liability litigations. We believe that these litigations are part of the ordinary course of our business and that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We intend to defend or, in cases where we are the plaintiff, to prosecute these litigations vigorously.

Unless otherwise indicated in the details provided below, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome or the effects of the litigations described below. The outcome of these litigations could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies; however, unless otherwise indicated below, at this time we are not able to estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, associated with these legal proceedings. From time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in the best interests of the Company. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, cash flows or financial condition.

We and certain of our former executive officers have been named as defendants in consolidated class action lawsuits filed on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 23, 2001 and July 5, 2006. The lawsuits followed our July 5, 2006 announcement regarding the restatement of certain of our financial statements and allege that we and certain members of our then management engaged in violations of the Exchange Act, by issuing false and misleading statements concerning our financial condition and results of operations. The class actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On July 23, 2008, co-lead plaintiffs filed a Second Consolidated Amended complaint. On September 30, 2009, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all claims as against Kenneth Sawyer but denied the motion as to the Company, Dennis O'Connor, and Scott Tarriff. We and Messrs. O'Connor and Tarriff have answered the Amended complaint and intend to vigorously defend the consolidated class action. Plaintiffs have filed a motion for class certification which we and the other defendants intend to oppose.

Following the announcement of our agreement to acquire Edict Pharmaceuticals Private Limited ("Edict"), a Chennai, India-based developer and manufacturer of generic pharmaceuticals, Gavis Pharma LLC ("Gavis"), an affiliate of Novel Laboratories, Inc. and a former shareholder of Edict, filed a lawsuit on June 29, 2011, in the Superior Court for the State of New Jersey, Somerset County, against us, Edict, and the shareholders of Edict, seeking to enjoin the closing of our acquisition of Edict and money damages. Gavis asserts claims against certain Edict shareholders for fraudulent inducement in connection with Gavis's 2009 decision to sell its equity interest in Edict; against Edict and certain Edict shareholders for breach of contract; and against us for tortious interference with contract for entering into our agreement to acquire Edict. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and have agreed by stipulation to delay closing our acquisition of Edict until the Court renders a ruling on the plaintiff's preliminary injunction motion, scheduled for hearing on August 3, 2011. The defendants' motions to dismiss have been scheduled for hearing on September 16, 2011. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Gavis.

On April 28, 2006, CIMA Labs, Inc. ("CIMA") and Schwarz Pharma, Inc. ("Schwarz Pharma") filed separate lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. CIMA and Schwarz Pharma each have alleged that we infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 6,024,981 (the "'981 patent") and 6,221,392 (the "'392 patent") by submitting a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of alprazolam orally disintegrating tablets. CIMA owns the '981 and '392 patents and Schwarz Pharma is CIMA's exclusive licensee. The two lawsuits were consolidated on January 29, 2007. In response to the lawsuit, we have answered and counterclaimed denying CIMA's and Schwarz Pharma's infringement allegations, asserting that the '981 and '392 patents are not infringed and are invalid and/or unenforceable. All 40 claims in the '981 patent were rejected in two non-final office actions in a reexamination proceeding at the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") on February 24, 2006 and on February 24, 2007. The '392 patent is also the subject of a reexamination proceeding. On July 10, 2008, the USPTO rejected with finality all claims pending in both the '392 and '981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the Examiner's rejection of all claims in the '981 patent. On November 25, 2009, plaintiffs requested a rehearing before the USPTO Board of Appeals regarding the '981 patent. On March 24, 2011, the USPTO Board of Appeals affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the '981 patent. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims.

We entered into a licensing agreement with developer Paddock Laboratories, Inc. ("Paddock") to market testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Unimed") product Androgel®. As a result of the filing of an ANDA, Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco ("Besins"), co-assignees of the patent-in-suit, filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement (the "Paddock litigation"). On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA for the testosterone 1% gel, and the Paddock litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that terminates all on-going litigation and permits us to launch the generic version of the product no earlier than August 31, 2015, and no later than February 28, 2016, assuring our ability to market a generic version of Androgel® well before the expiration of the patents at issue. On March 7, 2007, we were issued a Civil Investigative Demand seeking information and documents in connection with the court-approved settlement in 2006 of the patent dispute. On January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement in the Paddock litigation, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs' complaints beginning in February 2009. On April 9, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Par's motion to transfer the FTC lawsuit and the private plaintiffs' complaints to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. On July 20, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the FTC's case and on September 1, 2009, we filed a motion to dismiss the private plaintiffs' cases in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and on February 23, 2010, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the FTC's claims and granted in part and denied in part our motion to dismiss the claims of the private plaintiffs. On June 10, 2010, the FTC appealed the District Court's dismissal of the FTC's claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. On May 13, 2011, oral argument was held before the Court of Appeal and we currently await the Court's decision. We believe we have complied with all applicable laws in connection with the court-approved settlement and intend to continue to vigorously defend these actions.

On July 6, 2007, Sanofi-Aventis and Debiopharm, S.A. filed a lawsuit against us and our development partner, MN Pharmaceuticals ("MN"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,338,874 (the "'874 patent") and 5,716,988 (the "'988 patent") after we and MN submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 50 mg/10 ml, 100 mg/20 ml, and 200 mg/40 ml oxaliplatin by injection. On January 14, 2008, following MN's amendment of its ANDA to include oxaliplatin injectable 5 mg/ml, 40 ml vial, Sanofi-Aventis filed a complaint asserting infringement of the '874 and the '988 patents. MN and we filed our Answer and Counterclaim on February 20, 2008. On June 18, 2009, the District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement to several defendants, including us, on the '874 patent, but to date has not rendered a summary judgment decision regarding the '988 patent. On September 10, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. On September 24, 2009, Sanofi-Aventis filed a motion for preliminary injunction against defendants who entered the market following the District Court's summary judgment ruling. On November 19, 2009, the District Court dismissed all pending motions for summary judgment with possibility of the motions being renewed upon letter request to the Court. On April 14, 2010, the District Court entered a consent judgment and order agreed to by us, MN, and the plaintiffs, which agreement settled the pending litigation. In view of this agreement, MN and we will enter the market with generic Eloxatin on August 9, 2012, or earlier in certain circumstances.

On October 1, 2007, Elan Corporation, PLC ("Elan") filed a lawsuit against us and our development partners, IntelliPharmaCeutics Corp. and IntelliPharmaCeutics Ltd. ("IPC"), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On October 5, 2007, Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis Pharma AG ("Novartis") filed a lawsuit against IPC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because IPC and we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 15 mg, and 20 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. On March 5, 2010 and March 15, 2010, the U.S. District Courts for the Districts of New Jersey and Delaware, respectively, entered stays of the litigation between plaintiffs and us and IPC in view of settlement agreements reached by the parties. The settlement agreement terms are confidential.

On March 25, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC ("Elan") filed a lawsuit against us and our development partners, IntelliPharmaceutics Corp. and IntelliPharmaCeutics Ltd. ("IPC") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") and Novartis filed a lawsuit against IPC in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because IPC and we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 30 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits.

On May 27, 2011, Elan Corporation, PLC ("Elan") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, and Celgene Corporation ("Celgene") and Novartis filed a lawsuit against IPC (in error, subsequently amended to Par) in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint in the Delaware case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398 and 6,730,325 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaint in the New Jersey case alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,228,398; 6,730,325; 5,908,850; 6,355,656; 6,528,530; 5,837,284; and 6,635,284 because IPC and we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 40 mg dexmethylphenidate extended release capsules. We intend to vigorously defend and expeditiously resolve these lawsuits.

On September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. ("Santarus") and The Curators of the University of Missouri ("Missouri") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. On March 4, 2008, the cases pertaining to our ANDAs for omeprazole capsules and omeprazole oral suspension were consolidated for all purposes. The District Court conducted a bench trial from July 13-17, 2009, and found for Santarus only on the issue of infringement, while not rendering an opinion on the issues of invalidity and unenforceability. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that plaintiffs' patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. On May 17, 2010, Santarus filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appealing the District Court's decision of invalidity of the plaintiffs' patents. On May 27, 2010, we filed our notice of cross-appeal to the Court of Appeals, appealing the District Court's decision of enforceability of plaintiffs' patents. On July 1, 2010, we launched our generic Omeprazole/Sodium Bicarbonate product. Oral argument for the appeal was held on May 2, 2011. We will continue to vigorously defend the appeal.

On December 11, 2007, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, AstraZeneca UK Ltd., IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges patent infringement because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg and 40 mg rosuvastatin calcium tablets. On June 29, 2010, after an eight day bench trial, the District Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and against us, stating that the plaintiffs' patents were infringed, and not invalid or unenforceable. On August 11, 2010, we filed our notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, appealing the District Court's decision. On December 15, 2010, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss a case brought by AstraZeneca asserting we infringed its rosuvastatin process patents. On April 25, 2011, we filed our final appeal brief and await an oral hearing date for the appeal. We intend to defend all of these actions vigorously.

On November 14, 2008, Pozen, Inc. ("Pozen") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,060,499; 6,586,458; and 7,332,183, because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500 mg/85 mg naproxen sodium/sumatriptan succinate oral tablets. We joined GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") as a counterclaim defendant in this litigation. On April 28, 2009, GSK was dismissed from the case by the Court, but will be bound by the Court's decision and will be required to produce witnesses and materials during discovery. A four day bench trial was held from October 12 through October 15, 2010. On April 14, 2011, the Court granted a preliminary injunction to Pozen that prohibits us from launching our generic naproxen /sumatriptan product before the issuance of a final decision in the case. We are awaiting the Court's final decision.

On April 29, 2009, Pronova BioPharma ASA ("Pronova") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,502,077 and 5,656,667 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. On June 8, 2010, a new patent, U.S. 7,732,488, which was later listed in the Orange Book, was issued to Pronova. A second case, involving the claims of the '488 patent and two other patents not listed in the Orange Book and asserted by the plaintiffs, has a trial date set for January 3, 2012. A bench trial in the first case took place from March 29, 2011 to April 7, 2011. On July 25, 2011, a stipulation was submitted to the court dismissing the second case without prejudice. We intend to continue to defend this action vigorously and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Pronova.

On July 1, 2009, Alcon Research Ltd. ("Alcon") filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,510,383; 5,631,287; 5,849,792; 5,889,052; 6,011,062; 6,503,497; and 6,849,253 because we submitted a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 0.004% travoprost ophthalmic solutions and 0.004% travoprost ophthalmic solutions (preserved). We filed an answer on August 21, 2009. The Court rescheduled the end of fact discovery for December 31, 2010 and the end of expert discovery for May 9, 2011. Trial has yet to be rescheduled. On July 1, 2011, we, along with plaintiffs and co-defendants, submitted the joint pre-trial order. We intend to defend this action vigorously and pursue our defenses and counterclaims against Alcon.

On August 5, 2010, Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma filed a lawsuit against us and our partner EMET Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,170 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 400 mg delayed-release oral tablet of mesalamine. We filed an answer and counterclaims on August 25, 2010, and an initial Rule 16 conference was held on November 10, 2010. On March 29, 2011, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion to dismiss our counterclaim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,541,171. We intend to appeal that decision. Expert discovery closed July 5, 2011, and the close of fact discovery has been scheduled by the Court for August 5, 2011. A Markman hearing has been scheduled for August 15, 2011. We intend to defend this action vigorously and pursue all of our defenses and counterclaims against Warner Chilcott and Medeva Pharma.

On September 20, 2010, Schering-Plough HealthCare Products ("Schering-Plough"), Santarus, Inc. ("Santarus"), and the Curators of the University of Missouri filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos., 6,699,885; 6,489,346; 6,645,988; and 7,399,772 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of a 20mg/1100 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsule, a version of Schering-Plough's Zegerid OTC®. We have previously received a decision of invalidity with respect to all of these patents in our case against Santarus and Missouri with respect to the prescription version of this product, which decision is presently on appeal. On November 9, 2010, we entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs to stay litigation on the OTC product pending the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on the prescription product appeal, and the parties have agreed to be bound by such decision for purposes of the OTC product litigation. We intend to pursue our appeal and defend this action vigorously.

On September 22, 2010, Biovail Laboratories filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,569,610; 7,572,935; 7,649,019; 7,553,992; 7,671,094; 7,241,805; 7,645,802; 7,662,407; and 7,645,901 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of extended-release tablets of 174 mg and 348 mg bupropion hydrobromide. On November 10, 2010, we filed our answer to the complaint. On November 22, 2010, the Court set a June 30, 2011 deadline for all discovery. On March 7, 2011, the Court reset the deadline for all discovery to May 18, 2011. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On October 4, 2010, UCB Manufacturing, Inc. ("UCB") filed a verified complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Chancery Division, Middlesex, naming us, our development partner Tris Pharma, and Tris Pharma's head of research and development, Yu-Hsing Tu. The complaint alleges that Tris and Tu misappropriated UCB's trade secrets and, by their actions, breached contracts and agreements to which UCB, Tris, and Tu were bound. The complaint further alleges unfair competition against Tris, Tu, and us relating to the parties' manufacture and marketing of generic Tussionex®. On October 6, 2010, the Court denied UCB's petition for a temporary restraining order against us and Tris and set a schedule for discovery during which UCB must substantiate its claims. On December 23, 2010, the Court denied UCB's motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that UCB's alleged trade secrets were known to the public and not misappropriated. On June 2, 2011, the Court granted Tris' motion for summary judgment dismissing UCB's claims and UCB appealed the Court's order on June 22, 2011. We intend to vigorously defend the lawsuit and any appeal by plaintiffs.

On February 2, 2011, Somaxon Pharmaceuticals filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,211,229 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oral tablets of 3 mg equivalent and 6 mg equivalent doxepin hydrochloride. We filed our answer on February 23, 2011. On June 6, 2011, our case was consolidated in the same Court with that of the other defendants who filed ANDAs on this product. The Court has scheduled fact discovery to end on April 6, 2012; expert discovery to end on September 7, 2012; and set a "trial-ready" date of February 19, 2013. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On March 23, 2011, we filed a declaratory judgment action against UCB, Inc. and UCB Pharma SA ("UCB") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania requesting that the Court render a judgment of invalidity and/or non-infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,858,122 and 7,863,316 in view of our eventual marketing of levetiracetam extended release oral tablets, 500 mg and 750 mg pursuant to our filed ANDA that was accompanied by a Paragraph IV certification. On June 8, 2011, we filed our answer to UCB's counterclaims and submitted our joint Rule 26(f) report with the court on July 18, 2011. We intend to vigorously prosecute this action against UCB.

Beginning in September 2003, we, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in actions brought by a number of state Attorneys General and municipal bodies within the state of New York, as well as a federal qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States by the pharmacy Ven-A-Care of the Florida Keys, Inc. ("Ven-A-Care") alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting "Average Wholesale Prices" ("AWP") and/or "Wholesale Acquisition Costs" that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants' prescription drugs. To date, we have been named as a defendant in substantially similar civil law suits filed by the Attorneys General of Alabama, Alaska, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas and Utah, and also by the city of New York, 46 counties across New York State and Ven-A-Care. These cases generally seek some combination of actual damages, and/or double damages, treble damages, compensatory damages, statutory damages, civil penalties, disgorgement of excessive profits, restitution, disbursements, counsel fees and costs, litigation expenses, investigative costs, injunctive relief, punitive damages, imposition of a constructive trust, accounting of profits or gains derived through the alleged conduct, expert fees, interest and other relief that the court deems proper. Several of these cases have been transferred to the AWP multi-district litigation proceedings pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts for pre-trial proceedings. The case brought by the state of Mississippi will be litigated in the Chancery Court of Rankin County, Mississippi. The other cases will likely be litigated in the state or federal courts in which they were filed. In the Utah suit, the time for responding to the complaint has not yet elapsed. The Hawaii suit was settled on August 25, 2010 for $2,250 thousand. The Massachusetts suit was settled on December 17, 2010 for $500 thousand. The Alabama suit was settled on January 5, 2011 for $2,500 thousand. The Idaho suit was settled on March 25, 2011 for $1,700 thousand. On April 27, 2011, we reached a settlement in principle to resolve claims brought by Ven-A-Care, Texas, and Florida, under federal and state law, as well as Alaska, South Carolina, and Kentucky under state law for $154,000 thousand. Upon execution of definitive settlement documents and government and court approvals, the settlement will resolve a lawsuit relating to federal contributions to state Medicaid programs in 49 states (excluding Illinois), and claims of Texas, Florida, Alaska, South Carolina and Kentucky relating to their Medicaid programs. The settlement in principal will eliminate the majority of the alleged damages asserted against us in the various drug pricing litigations and removes all trials that had been scheduled to date. On June 2, 2011, we reached a settlement in principle to resolve claims brought by the city of New York, New York Counties and the state of Iowa under respective state law for $23,000 thousand. The remaining matters have yet to be scheduled for trial. We have accrued a $195,400 thousand reserve under the caption "Accrued legal settlements" on our condensed consolidated balance sheet as of June 30, 2011, in connection with the April 27, 2011, settlement in principal and the remaining AWP actions. In each of the remaining matters, we have either moved to dismiss the complaints or answered the complaints denying liability. We will continue to defend or explore settlement opportunities in other jurisdictions as we feel are in our best interest under the circumstances presented in those jurisdictions. However, we can give no assurance that we will be able to settle the remaining actions on terms that we deem reasonable, or that such settlements or adverse judgments, if entered, will not exceed the amount of the reserve.

In addition, the Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the United States Office of Personnel Management (the "USOPM") have issued subpoenas, and the Attorneys General of Michigan, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah have issued civil investigative demands, to us. The demands generally request documents and information pertaining to allegations that certain of our sales and marketing practices caused pharmacies to substitute ranitidine capsules for ranitidine tablets, fluoxetine tablets for fluoxetine capsules, and two 7.5 mg buspirone tablets for one 15 mg buspirone tablet, under circumstances in which some state Medicaid programs at various times reimbursed the new dosage form at a higher rate than the dosage form being substituted. We have provided documents in response to these subpoenas to the respective Attorneys General and the USOPM. During the second quarter of 2011, we continued to engage the respective Attorneys General, the USOPM and the Department of Justice, led by the U.S. Attorneys in the Northern District of Illinois, in discussions concerning these allegations, and we will continue to cooperate if called upon to do so.

Department of Justice Matter

On March 19, 2009, we were served with a subpoena by the Department of Justice requesting documents related to Strativa's marketing of Megace® ES. The subpoena indicated that the Department of Justice is currently investigating promotional practices in the sales and marketing of Megace® ES. We believe that our marketing of Megace® ES has complied with all applicable laws and we have provided, or are in the process of providing, documents in response to this subpoena to the Department of Justice and will continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice in this inquiry if called upon to do so. Investigations of this type often result in settlements, including monetary amounts based on an agreed upon percentage of sales of the product at issue in the investigation.

Other

We are, from time to time, a party to certain other litigations, including product liability litigations. We believe that these litigations are part of the ordinary course of our business and that their ultimate resolution will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity. We intend to defend or, in cases where we are the plaintiff, to prosecute these litigations vigorously.