Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters	Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters: Leases At December 31, 2014, we had minimum rental commitments aggregating $33.9 million under non-cancelable operating leases expiring through 2024. Amounts payable thereunder are $6.3 million in 2015, $4.7 million in 2016, $4.0 million in 2017, $3.3 million in 2018 and $15.6 million thereafter. Rent expense charged to operations was $6.4 million in 2014 (Successor), $6.3 million in 2013 (Successor), $1.6 million in the period from September 29, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (Successor), and $4.8 million for the period from January 1, 2012 to September 28, 2012 (Predecessor). Retirement Savings Plan We have a Retirement Savings Plan (the “Retirement Savings Plan”) whereby eligible employees are permitted to contribute annually from 1% to 25% of their compensation to the Retirement Savings Plan. We contribute an amount equal to 50% of up to the first 6% of compensation contributed by the employee (“401(k) matching feature”). All participants enrolled in the Retirement Savings Plan as of January 1, 2013 became vested immediately with respect to the 401(k) matching feature contributions each pay period. Participants who enrolled in the Retirement Savings Plan after January 1, 2013 become vested with respect to 20% of our contributions for each full year of employment with the Company and thus become fully vested after five full years. We also may contribute additional funds each year to the Retirement Savings Plan, the amount of which, if any, is determined by the Board in its sole discretion. We incurred expenses related to the 401(k) matching feature of the Retirement Savings Plan of $2.0 million in 2014 (Successor), $1.7 million in 2013 (Successor), $0.2 million in the period from September 29, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (Successor), and $0.9 million for the period from January 1, 2012 to September 28, 2012 (Predecessor). We did not make a discretionary contribution to the Retirement Savings Plan for 2014, 2013 and 2012. Our Anchen subsidiary has a legacy 401(k) plan whereby its eligible employees are permitted to contribute annually from their compensation to this 401(k) plan up to the annual IRS limit. Under this plan, Anchen eligible employees can receive employer matching contributions of 100% of the first 3% of compensation contributed and 50% of the next 2% of compensation contributed (“Anchen 401(k) matching feature”). Participants in the legacy 401(k) plan become vested immediately with respect to the Anchen 401(k) matching feature contributions each pay period. Anchen eligible employees may also receive additional funds each year under the legacy 401(k) plan, the amount of which, if any, is determined by the Board in its sole discretion. As of December 31, 2012, this plan was merged into the Retirement Savings Plan. We incurred expenses related to the Anchen 401(k) matching feature of $0.1 million in the period from September 29, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (Successor), and $0.4 million for the period from January 1, 2012 to September 28, 2012 (Predecessor). We did not make a discretionary contribution to the legacy 401(k) plan for 2012. We incurred expenses related to the 401(k) matching feature of the Par Sterile Retirement Savings Plan, assumed as part of the Par Sterile Acquisition, of $1.4 million in 2014. Legal Proceedings Our legal proceedings are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. As such, we cannot predict the outcome or the effects of the legal proceedings described below. While we believe that we have valid claims and/or defenses in the litigations described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of these proceedings could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies. For proceedings where losses are both probable and reasonably estimable, we have accrued for such potential loss as set forth below. Such accruals have been developed based upon estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or incomplete, and unknown circumstances may exist or unforeseen events occur that could lead us to change those estimates and assumptions. 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. In general, we intend to continue to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these proceedings, as appropriate; however, 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 and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition. 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. On July 10, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected all claims pending in both the ‘392 and ‘981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of all claims in the ‘981 patent, and on March 24, 2011, the PTAB affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the ‘981 patent. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs re-opened prosecution on both patents at the USPTO. On May 13, 2013, the PTAB reversed outstanding rejections to the currently pending claims of the ’392 patent reexamination application and affirmed a conclusion by the Examiner that testimony offered by the patentee had overcome other rejections. On September 20, 2013, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’392 patent, and on January 9, 2014, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’981 patent, each incorporating narrower claims than the respective originally-issued patent. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims. Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock Laboratories, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement as a result of Paddock’s submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Androgel®. On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA, and the litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that 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 January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the FTC filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs’ complaints beginning in February 2009. On February 23, 2010, the District 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 September 28, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs’ claims of sham litigation. 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 April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for further proceedings. On October 23, 2013, the District Court issued an order on indicative ruling on a request for relief from judgment, effectively remanding to the District Court the appeal of the grant of our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs’ claims and holding those claims in abeyance while the remaining issues pending before the Court are resolved. 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 September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. 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 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. The complaints generally sought (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On October 20, 2008, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add U.S. Patent Nos. 6,780,882 and 7,399,722. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that the plaintiffs’ patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. On July 1, 2010, we launched our 20 mg and 40 mg generic omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules product. Santarus and Missouri appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we cross-appealed the District Court’s decision of enforceability of plaintiffs’ patents. On September 4, 2012, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s finding of invalidity and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, and we ceased further distribution of our 20 mg and 40 mg generic omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules product. Santarus was acquired by Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on January 2, 2014. On September 22, 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement with Salix, Santarus and Missouri to resolve all claims relating to this matter, and the dismissal stipulation was entered on September 26, 2014. As part of the settlement, Salix, Santarus and Missouri released all claims against us in exchange for a payment of $100.0 million. We recorded a charge of $91.0 million in the third quarter of 2014 in addition to the $9.0 million previously accrued. 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 an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. On May 29, 2012, the District Court ruled in favor of Pronova in the initial case, and we appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 25, 2012. On September 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, reversing the lower District Court decision. On March 5, 2014, judgment in our favor was formally entered in the District Court. On April 16, 2014, Pronova petitioned for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6, 2014. On August 10, 2011, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (“Avanir”) 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. 7,659,282 and RE38,115 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral capsules of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. Our case was consolidated with those of other defendants, Actavis, Impax, and Wockhardt. On September 12, 2012, Avanir filed an additional complaint against us, adding U.S. Patent No. 8,227,484 to the case. A bench trial was held from September 9-13 and October 15, 2013. On April 30, 2014, a decision was entered in favor of Avanir. On August 20, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring that Avanir delist the ‘115 patent, leaving only the ‘484 and ‘282 to be addressed on appeal. We filed our notice of appeal following resolution of the delisting claim on September 12, 2014. We intend to prosecute our appeal of this decision vigorously. On September 1, 2011, we, along with EDT Pharma Holdings Ltd. (now known as Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited) (Elan), filed a complaint against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“TWi”) of Taiwan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 because TWi filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace® ES. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial was held from October 7-15, 2013. On February 21, 2014, the District Court issued a decision in favor of TWi, finding all asserted claims of the ‘576 patent invalid for obviousness, and we appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 12, 2014, the District Court granted our motion for preliminary injunction enjoining TWi’s launch of its generic product pending disposition of the case on appeal, requiring us to post a $10.0 million bond. On December 3, 2014, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, remanding for further findings of fact. On March 9, 2015, the District Court granted our motion for preliminary injunction enjoining TWi’s launch of its generic product pending disposition of the case on remand, requiring us to post a $6.0 million bond. We intend to continue to vigorously pursue our case. On April 4, 2012, AR Holding Company, Inc. 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. 7,619,004; 7,601,758; 7,820,681; 7,915,269; 7,964,647; 7,964,648; 7,981,938; 8,093,296; 8,093,297; and 8,097,655 (subsequently adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,415,395 and 8,415,396) because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral tablets of 0.6 mg colchicine. On November 1, 2012, Takeda Pharmaceuticals was substituted as the plaintiff and real party-in-interest in the case. On August 30, 2013, Takeda filed a second complaint in view of the same filing adding to the dispute U.S. Patent Nos. 7,906,519; 7,935,731; 7,964,648; 8,093,297; and 8,093,298. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On August 30, 2013, Takeda filed a new complaint against us in view of our change of the ANDA’s labeled indication. We intend to defend these actions vigorously. On October 25, 2012, Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”) and Transcept Pharmaceuticals (“Transcept”) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,131 and 8,252,809 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablets 1.75 and 3.5 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On November 24, 2014, we reached an agreement with Purdue and Transcept to stay our case contingent upon our agreement to be bound by the District Court’s decision in Transcept’s trial against Actavis and Novel Laboratories, which commenced December 1, 2014. On December 19, 2012, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Grünenthal GmbH 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. 7,851,482; 8,114,383; 8,192,722; 8.309, 060; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets 40 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On November 7, 2014, Endo and Mallinckrodt sued us on the same filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,808,737 and 8,871,779 to the case. On January 15, 2015, the case in the Southern District of New York was dismissed by stipulation. We intend to defend the action in the District of Delaware vigorously. On January 8, 2013, we were substituted for Actavis as defendant in litigation then pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The action was brought by Novartis against Actavis for filing an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of rivastigmine transdermal extended release film 4.6 and 9.5 mg/24 hr. We assumed the rights to this ANDA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 5,602,176; 6,316,023; and 6,335,031 and generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On August 22, 2013, Novartis filed an additional complaint in view of our submission of an ANDA supplement containing a Paragraph IV certification adding the 13.3 mg/24 hr. strength. A trial was held August 26-29, 2013, and a second bench trial directed to our non-infringement positions was held on May 1-2, 2014. On June 27, 2014, we filed a declaratory judgment action against Novartis in the same Court regarding all strengths, seeking judgment of non-infringement and invalidity on all asserted patents in view of all strengths embraced by our ANDA. On August 29, 2014, the Court in the first action entered judgment in our favor, finding that we do not infringe the asserted patents. On October 7, 2014, the Court entered judgment in our favor on the declaratory judgment complaint. On October 20, 2014 and October 30, 2014, Novartis filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from both the original case as well as the complaint initiated on the ANDA supplement. On November 7, 2014, Novartis filed an appeal from the declaratory judgment decision. We intend to defend these actions vigorously. On February 7, 2013, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and R-Tech Ueno 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. 6,414,016; 7,795,312; 8,026,393; 8,071,613; 8,097,653; and 8,338,639 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of lubiprostone oral capsules 8 mcg and 24 mcg. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On July 3, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, adding U.S. Patent No. 8,389,542 to the case. On October 9, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the dispute and allowing us to launch our generic lubiprostone product on January 1, 2021, or earlier in certain circumstances. The consent judgment terminating the case was entered December 2, 2014. On May 15, 2013, Endo Pharmaceuticals 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. 7,851,482; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 as a result of our November 2012 acquisition from Watson of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of non-tamper resistant oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On June 21, 2013, we, along with Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited (Elan), filed a complaint against Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In the complaint, we allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,592,903 and 7,101,576 because Breckenridge filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace® ES. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A stipulation to stay the proceedings was entered on July 22, 2014. We intend to prosecute this infringement case vigorously. On September 23, 2013, Forest Labs and Royalty Pharma 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., 6,602,911; 7,888,342; and 7,994,220 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg milnacipran HCl oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On August 20, 2013 and April 4, 2014, MonoSol RX and Reckitt Benckiser filed lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,017,150, 8,475,832 and 8,603,514, because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of EQ 2/0.5, 8/2, 4/1, 12/3 mg base buprenorphine HCl/naloxone HCl sublingual films. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On December 31, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a complaint on the same ANDA filing, adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,900,497 and 8,906,277. We intend to defend these actions vigorously. On December 27, 2013, Jazz Pharmaceuticals 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. 6,472,431; 6,780,889; 7,262,219; 7,851,506; 8,263,650; 8,324,275; 8,461,203; 7,668,730; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,895,059; 8,457,988; and 8,589,182 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500mg/ml sodium oxybate oral solution. On August 15, 2014, October 10, 2014, and January 8, 2015, Jazz filed additional complaints against us in view of the same ANDA filing, adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,731,963; 8,772,306; and 8,859,619, respectively, to the case. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend these actions vigorously. On January 21, 2014, Lyne Laboratories, Fresenius USA Manufacturing and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,591,938 and 8,592,480 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 169mg/5ml calcium acetate oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. The case has been settled on confidential terms with a stipulation of dismissal, which we expect will be entered by the Court presently. On February 14, 2014 and August 15, 2014, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed lawsuits against us and our Anchen subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,039,009; 8,168,209; 8,173,708; 8,283,379; 8,329,752; 8,362,085; and 8,598,233 because we submitted ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 7, 14, 21, and 28 mg memantine hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On January 14, 2015, a joint stipulation of dismissal was entered in the case pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties. On April 23, 2014, Hyperion Therapeutics 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. 8,404,215 and 8,642,012 because we submitted an ANDA with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g/ml glyceryl phenylbutyrate oral liquid. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On June 20, 2014, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. 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. 5,753,677 and 8,501,730 relating to our Paragraph IV certification accompanying our ANDA for approval of 15 and 30 mg tolvaptan oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On June 30, 2014, AstraZeneca 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. 7,951,400 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of eq 2.5 mg and eq 5 mg saxagliptin hydrochloride oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On July 17, 2014, Glycyx Pharmaceuticals and Salix 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. 6,197,341 and 8,497,256 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g balsalazide disodium oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On August 6, 2014, Prometheus Labs 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. 6,284,770 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 0.5 and 1.0 mg alosetron hydrochloride tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On November 17, 2014, the court stayed our case pending the outcome of the appeal of the first Paragraph IV filer’s victory in the District Court. On August 19, 2014, Hospira, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment complaint against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in view of the FDA’s approval of our ANDA for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injection, concentrate (100 mcg/ml) vials pursuant to our submission and statement under section viii. On August 20, 2014, we moved to intervene in the case on the side of the FDA. On August 25, 2014, we filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Hospira, Inc. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,716,867 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On September 5, 2014, the Maryland Court ruled in favor of the FDA, Par and joint intervenor Mylan, Inc. on summary judgment, and Hospira, Inc. and its intervenor/co-complainant Sandoz appealed that judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 29, 2014, all parties stipulated jointly to a dismissal of all of the cases (Maryland, New Jersey, and the Fourth Circuit) pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement. On October 10, 2014, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG 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. 5,665,772; 6,004,973; and 6,455,518 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 mg everolimus tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On November 19, 2014, we filed a declaratory judgment action against GlaxoSmithKline and Aptalis in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,919,115 in view of our April 11, 2012 submission of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA seeking approval for lamotrigine orally disintegrating tablets 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg. On January 30, 2015, the consent judgment was entered. Under a Development and Supply Agreement between Pharmaceutics International, Inc. (“PII”) and Par Sterile, PII agreed to develop and manufacture, and Par Sterile agreed to market and sell, certain pharmaceutical products, including zoledronic acid, the generic version of Zometa® and Reclast®. Under the Agreement, the parties agreed to share equally all mutually agreed expenses and costs of Paragraph IV proceedings related to the product, including any costs and expenses related to any mutually agreed upon settlement. On February 20, 2013, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation filed a lawsuit against PII, along with several other defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, for filing ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications seeking FDA approval of both zoledronic acid eq 4 mg base/5 ml vials and zoledronic acid eq 5 mg base/100 ml bottles. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the sale of generic versions of Reclast® and Zometa® would infringe one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,324,189; 7,932,241; and 8,052,987 and seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit; and (iii) damages or other monetary relief in light of commercial manufacture, use, offers to sell, or sale of the ANDA products. On March 1, 2013, the District Court denied Novartis’s request for a temporary restraining order against PII and the other defendants. On March 4, 2013, Par Sterile began distribution of PII’s generic Zometa® product and began distribution of the generic Reclast® product in December 2013. On December 3, 2014, in view of the foregoing, Novartis sued Par Sterile in the same court, seeking (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit; and (iii) damages or other monetary relief in light of commercial manufacture, use, offers to sell, or sale of the ANDA products. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On December 18, 2014, and January 23, 2015, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG filed lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,665,772; 7,297,703; and 7,741,338 518 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 mg everolimus tablets. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend these actions vigorously. On January 16, 2015, Supernus Pharmaceuticals 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. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; and 8,877,248 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg topiramate extended release capsules. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On January 21, 2015, Tris Pharma, Inc., 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. 8,062,667; 8,287,903; 8,465,765; 8,563,033; and 8,778,390 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg/ml methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release oral suspension. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On February 2, 2015, Cosmo Technologies, Ltd and Santarus, Inc. 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. 7,410,651; 7,431,943; 8,293,273; 8,784,888; 8,895,064; and RE43,799 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 9 mg budesonide tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On February 20, 2015, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Ferring International Center S.A. 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. 8,450,338 and 8,481,083 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 10/3.5/12 g sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide/citric acid packets for oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On February 26, 2015, Shire, LLC 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. RE41,148 and RE42,096 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 mg mixed amphetamine salts extended release capsules. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. On March 6, 2015, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. and Merck & Cie 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. 7,566,462; 7,566,714; 7,612,073; 7,727,987; 8,003,126; 8,067,416; RE43,797; and 8,318,745 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 100 mg sapropterin dihydrochloride oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously. Industry Related Matters Beginning in September 2003, we, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in actions brought by the Attorneys General of Illinois, Kansas, and Utah, as well as a state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC, alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting or causing the reporting of AWP and/or “Wholesale Acquisition Costs” that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants’ prescription drugs. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recorded $25.7 million as “Settlements and loss contingencies, net” on the consolidated statements of operations as we continued to periodically assess and estimate our remaining potential liability. On January 28, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Kansas for $1.8 million. On February 5, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Utah for $2.1 million. On June 2, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Illinois for $28.5 million, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The amounts provided for 2013 represents the amounts settled, less amounts previously accrued. Other than as described below, all of the above AWP cases against the Company have been concluded. On February 17, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin dismissed the state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC. On June 12, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to amend the complaint and issued a final order of dismissal on the merits, without prejudice. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the ruling, and on September 22, 2014, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a similar AWP qui tam action under seal in the Dane County Circuit Court, and the State of Wisconsin declined to intervene on December 19, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Dane County Circuit Court unsealed the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the U.S. 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. The aforementioned subpoenas and civil investigative demands culminated in the federal and state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States and several states by Bernard Lisitza. The complaint was unsealed on August 30, 2011. The United States intervened in this action on July 8, 2011 and filed a separate complaint on September 9, 2011, alleging claims for violations of the Federal False Claims Act and common law fraud. The states of Michigan and Indiana have also intervened as to claims arising under their respective state false claims acts, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits. Other On March 19, 2009, we were served with a subpoena by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") requesting documents related to Par Specialty’s marketing of Megace® ES. The subpoena indicated that the DOJ was investigating promotional practices in the sales and marketing of Megace® ES. We cooperated with the DOJ in this inquiry. On March 5, 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ that terminated the DOJ’s investigation. The settlement agreement provided for our payment of $45.0 million (plus interest and fees) and included a plea agreement with the New Jersey Criminal Division of the DOJ in which the Company admitted to a single count of misdemeanor misbranding, a civil settlement with the DOJ, a state settlement encompassing forty-nine states (one state declined to participate due to the small amount of its potential recovery), and a release from each of these entities in favor of the Company related to the practices at issue in the terminated investigation. The Company accrued for the settlement in the period from January 1, 2012 through September 28, 2012 (Predecessor). The settlement was paid in 2013. On August 6, 2014, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut requesting documents related to our agreement with Covis Pharma S.a.r.l. to distribute an authorized generic version of Covis’s Lanoxin® (digoxin) oral tablets. We completed our response on October 28, 2014. On December 5, 2014, we received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ requesting documents related to communications with competitors regarding our authorized generic version of Covis’s Lanoxin® (digoxin) oral tablets and our generic doxycycline products. We intend to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice’s inquiry. On February 3, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from Office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska instructing production of, among other documents, all production in the on-going lawsuit filed against us in 2009 by the Bureau of Competition for the FTC and currently on remand to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, described above under “Patent related matters.” We intend to comply fully with the Civil Investigative Demand. On February 9, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC instructing production of, among other documents, all documents related to our license agreement and manufacturing and supply agreement with Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. relating to our sale of clonidine hydrochloride extended release tablets, the generic version of Concordia’s Kapvay®. We intend to comply fully with the Civil Investigative Demand. 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 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.

Commitments, Contingencies and Other Matters:

Leases

At December 31, 2014, we had minimum rental commitments aggregating $33.9 million under non-cancelable operating leases expiring through 2024. Amounts payable thereunder are $6.3 million in 2015, $4.7 million in 2016, $4.0 million in 2017, $3.3 million in 2018 and $15.6 million thereafter. Rent expense charged to operations was $6.4 million in 2014 (Successor), $6.3 million in 2013 (Successor), $1.6 million in the period from September 29, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (Successor), and $4.8 million for the period from January 1, 2012 to September 28, 2012 (Predecessor).

Retirement Savings Plan

We have a Retirement Savings Plan (the “Retirement Savings Plan”) whereby eligible employees are permitted to contribute annually from 1% to 25% of their compensation to the Retirement Savings Plan. We contribute an amount equal to 50% of up to the first 6% of compensation contributed by the employee (“401(k) matching feature”). All participants enrolled in the Retirement Savings Plan as of January 1, 2013 became vested immediately with respect to the 401(k) matching feature contributions each pay period. Participants who enrolled in the Retirement Savings Plan after January 1, 2013 become vested with respect to 20% of our contributions for each full year of employment with the Company and thus become fully vested after five full years. We also may contribute additional funds each year to the Retirement Savings Plan, the amount of which, if any, is determined by the Board in its sole discretion. We incurred expenses related to the 401(k) matching feature of the Retirement Savings Plan of $2.0 million in 2014 (Successor), $1.7 million in 2013 (Successor), $0.2 million in the period from September 29, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (Successor), and $0.9 million for the period from January 1, 2012 to September 28, 2012 (Predecessor). We did not make a discretionary contribution to the Retirement Savings Plan for 2014, 2013 and 2012.

Our Anchen subsidiary has a legacy 401(k) plan whereby its eligible employees are permitted to contribute annually from their compensation to this 401(k) plan up to the annual IRS limit. Under this plan, Anchen eligible employees can receive employer matching contributions of 100% of the first 3% of compensation contributed and 50% of the next 2% of compensation contributed (“Anchen 401(k) matching feature”). Participants in the legacy 401(k) plan become vested immediately with respect to the Anchen 401(k) matching feature contributions each pay period. Anchen eligible employees may also receive additional funds each year under the legacy 401(k) plan, the amount of which, if any, is determined by the Board in its sole discretion. As of December 31, 2012, this plan was merged into the Retirement Savings Plan. We incurred expenses related to the Anchen 401(k) matching feature of $0.1 million in the period from September 29, 2012 to December 31, 2012 (Successor), and $0.4 million for the period from January 1, 2012 to September 28, 2012 (Predecessor). We did not make a discretionary contribution to the legacy 401(k) plan for 2012.

We incurred expenses related to the 401(k) matching feature of the Par Sterile Retirement Savings Plan, assumed as part of the Par Sterile Acquisition, of $1.4 million in 2014.

Legal Proceedings

Our legal proceedings are complex and subject to significant uncertainties. As such, we cannot predict the outcome or the effects of the legal proceedings described below. While we believe that we have valid claims and/or defenses in the litigations described below, litigation is inherently unpredictable, and the outcome of these proceedings could include substantial damages, the imposition of substantial fines, penalties, and injunctive or administrative remedies. For proceedings where losses are both probable and reasonably estimable, we have accrued for such potential loss as set forth below. Such accruals have been developed based upon estimates and assumptions that have been deemed reasonable by management, but the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or incomplete, and unknown circumstances may exist or unforeseen events occur that could lead us to change those estimates and assumptions. 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. In general, we intend to continue to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these proceedings, as appropriate; however, 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 and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition.

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. On July 10, 2008, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) rejected all claims pending in both the ‘392 and ‘981 patents. On September 28, 2009, the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of all claims in the ‘981 patent, and on March 24, 2011, the PTAB affirmed the rejections pending for both patents and added new grounds for rejection of the ‘981 patent. On June 24, 2011, the plaintiffs re-opened prosecution on both patents at the USPTO. On May 13, 2013, the PTAB reversed outstanding rejections to the currently pending claims of the ’392 patent reexamination application and affirmed a conclusion by the Examiner that testimony offered by the patentee had overcome other rejections. On September 20, 2013, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’392 patent, and on January 9, 2014, a reexamination certificate was issued for the ’981 patent, each incorporating narrower claims than the respective originally-issued patent. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit and pursue our counterclaims.

Unimed and Laboratories Besins Iscovesco filed a lawsuit on August 22, 2003 against Paddock Laboratories, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia alleging patent infringement as a result of Paddock’s submitting an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of testosterone 1% gel, a generic version of Unimed Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s Androgel®. On September 13, 2006, we acquired from Paddock all rights to the ANDA, and the litigation was resolved by a settlement and license agreement that 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 January 30, 2009, the Bureau of Competition for the FTC filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, subsequently transferred to the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations of antitrust laws stemming from our court-approved settlement, and several distributors and retailers followed suit with a number of private plaintiffs’ complaints beginning in February 2009. On February 23, 2010, the District 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 September 28, 2012, the District Court granted our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs’ claims of sham litigation. 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 April 25, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision. On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for further proceedings. On October 23, 2013, the District Court issued an order on indicative ruling on a request for relief from judgment, effectively remanding to the District Court the appeal of the grant of our motion for summary judgment against the private plaintiffs’ claims and holding those claims in abeyance while the remaining issues pending before the Court are resolved. 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 September 13, 2007, Santarus, Inc. 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 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,699,885; 6,489,346; and 6,645,988 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules. On December 20, 2007, Santarus and Missouri filed a second lawsuit alleging infringement of the patents because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of 20 mg and 40 mg omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate powders for oral suspension. The complaints generally sought (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On October 20, 2008, plaintiffs amended their complaint to add U.S. Patent Nos. 6,780,882 and 7,399,722. On April 14, 2010, the District Court ruled in our favor, finding that the plaintiffs’ patents were invalid as being obvious and without adequate written description. On July 1, 2010, we launched our 20 mg and 40 mg generic omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules product. Santarus and Missouri appealed the District Court’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and we cross-appealed the District Court’s decision of enforceability of plaintiffs’ patents. On September 4, 2012, the Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s finding of invalidity and remanded to the District Court for further proceedings, and we ceased further distribution of our 20 mg and 40 mg generic omeprazole/sodium bicarbonate capsules product. Santarus was acquired by Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. on January 2, 2014. On September 22, 2014, we entered into a settlement agreement with Salix, Santarus and Missouri to resolve all claims relating to this matter, and the dismissal stipulation was entered on September 26, 2014. As part of the settlement, Salix, Santarus and Missouri released all claims against us in exchange for a payment of $100.0 million. We recorded a charge of $91.0 million in the third quarter of 2014 in addition to the $9.0 million previously accrued.

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 an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of omega-3-acid ethyl esters oral capsules. On May 29, 2012, the District Court ruled in favor of Pronova in the initial case, and we appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on June 25, 2012. On September 12, 2013, the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor, reversing the lower District Court decision. On March 5, 2014, judgment in our favor was formally entered in the District Court. On April 16, 2014, Pronova petitioned for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6, 2014.

On August 10, 2011, Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (“Avanir”) 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. 7,659,282 and RE38,115 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral capsules of 20 mg dextromethorphan hydrobromide and 10 mg quinidine sulfate. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. Our case was consolidated with those of other defendants, Actavis, Impax, and Wockhardt. On September 12, 2012, Avanir filed an additional complaint against us, adding U.S. Patent No. 8,227,484 to the case. A bench trial was held from September 9-13 and October 15, 2013. On April 30, 2014, a decision was entered in favor of Avanir. On August 20, 2014, the Court issued an order requiring that Avanir delist the ‘115 patent, leaving only the ‘484 and ‘282 to be addressed on appeal. We filed our notice of appeal following resolution of the delisting claim on September 12, 2014. We intend to prosecute our appeal of this decision vigorously.

On September 1, 2011, we, along with EDT Pharma Holdings Ltd. (now known as Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited) (Elan), filed a complaint against TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“TWi”) of Taiwan in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,101,576 because TWi filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace® ES. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A bench trial was held from October 7-15, 2013. On February 21, 2014, the District Court issued a decision in favor of TWi, finding all asserted claims of the ‘576 patent invalid for obviousness, and we appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On August 12, 2014, the District Court granted our motion for preliminary injunction enjoining TWi’s launch of its generic product pending disposition of the case on appeal, requiring us to post a $10.0 million bond. On December 3, 2014, the Federal Circuit reversed the District Court’s decision, remanding for further findings of fact. On March 9, 2015, the District Court granted our motion for preliminary injunction enjoining TWi’s launch of its generic product pending disposition of the case on remand, requiring us to post a $6.0 million bond. We intend to continue to vigorously pursue our case.

On April 4, 2012, AR Holding Company, Inc. 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. 7,619,004; 7,601,758; 7,820,681; 7,915,269; 7,964,647; 7,964,648; 7,981,938; 8,093,296; 8,093,297; and 8,097,655 (subsequently adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,415,395 and 8,415,396) because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of oral tablets of 0.6 mg colchicine. On November 1, 2012, Takeda Pharmaceuticals was substituted as the plaintiff and real party-in-interest in the case. On August 30, 2013, Takeda filed a second complaint in view of the same filing adding to the dispute U.S. Patent Nos. 7,906,519; 7,935,731; 7,964,648; 8,093,297; and 8,093,298. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On August 30, 2013, Takeda filed a new complaint against us in view of our change of the ANDA’s labeled indication. We intend to defend these actions vigorously.

On October 25, 2012, Purdue Pharma L.P. (“Purdue”) and Transcept Pharmaceuticals (“Transcept”) filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,242,131 and 8,252,809 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of zolpidem tartrate sublingual tablets 1.75 and 3.5 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On November 24, 2014, we reached an agreement with Purdue and Transcept to stay our case contingent upon our agreement to be bound by the District Court’s decision in Transcept’s trial against Actavis and Novel Laboratories, which commenced December 1, 2014.

On December 19, 2012, Endo Pharmaceuticals and Grünenthal GmbH 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. 7,851,482; 8,114,383; 8,192,722; 8.309, 060; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets 40 mg. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On November 7, 2014, Endo and Mallinckrodt sued us on the same filing in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,808,737 and 8,871,779 to the case. On January 15, 2015, the case in the Southern District of New York was dismissed by stipulation. We intend to defend the action in the District of Delaware vigorously.

On January 8, 2013, we were substituted for Actavis as defendant in litigation then pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The action was brought by Novartis against Actavis for filing an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of rivastigmine transdermal extended release film 4.6 and 9.5 mg/24 hr. We assumed the rights to this ANDA. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patents 5,602,176; 6,316,023; and 6,335,031 and generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On August 22, 2013, Novartis filed an additional complaint in view of our submission of an ANDA supplement containing a Paragraph IV certification adding the 13.3 mg/24 hr. strength. A trial was held August 26-29, 2013, and a second bench trial directed to our non-infringement positions was held on May 1-2, 2014. On June 27, 2014, we filed a declaratory judgment action against Novartis in the same Court regarding all strengths, seeking judgment of non-infringement and invalidity on all asserted patents in view of all strengths embraced by our ANDA. On August 29, 2014, the Court in the first action entered judgment in our favor, finding that we do not infringe the asserted patents. On October 7, 2014, the Court entered judgment in our favor on the declaratory judgment complaint. On October 20, 2014 and October 30, 2014, Novartis filed notices of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from both the original case as well as the complaint initiated on the ANDA supplement. On November 7, 2014, Novartis filed an appeal from the declaratory judgment decision. We intend to defend these actions vigorously.

On February 7, 2013, Sucampo Pharmaceuticals, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and R-Tech Ueno 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. 6,414,016; 7,795,312; 8,026,393; 8,071,613; 8,097,653; and 8,338,639 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of lubiprostone oral capsules 8 mcg and 24 mcg. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On July 3, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, adding U.S. Patent No. 8,389,542 to the case. On October 9, 2014, the parties entered into a settlement agreement resolving the dispute and allowing us to launch our generic lubiprostone product on January 1, 2021, or earlier in certain circumstances. The consent judgment terminating the case was entered December 2, 2014.

On May 15, 2013, Endo Pharmaceuticals 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. 7,851,482; 8,309,122; and 8,329,216 as a result of our November 2012 acquisition from Watson of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of non-tamper resistant oxymorphone hydrochloride extended release tablets. The complaint generally seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On June 21, 2013, we, along with Alkermes Pharma Ireland Limited (Elan), filed a complaint against Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. In the complaint, we allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,592,903 and 7,101,576 because Breckenridge filed an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification seeking FDA approval of a generic version of Megace® ES. Our complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. A stipulation to stay the proceedings was entered on July 22, 2014. We intend to prosecute this infringement case vigorously.

On September 23, 2013, Forest Labs and Royalty Pharma 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., 6,602,911; 7,888,342; and 7,994,220 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 12.5, 25, 50, and 100 mg milnacipran HCl oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On August 20, 2013 and April 4, 2014, MonoSol RX and Reckitt Benckiser filed lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,017,150, 8,475,832 and 8,603,514, because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of EQ 2/0.5, 8/2, 4/1, 12/3 mg base buprenorphine HCl/naloxone HCl sublingual films. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On December 31, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a complaint on the same ANDA filing, adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,900,497 and 8,906,277. We intend to defend these actions vigorously.

On December 27, 2013, Jazz Pharmaceuticals 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. 6,472,431; 6,780,889; 7,262,219; 7,851,506; 8,263,650; 8,324,275; 8,461,203; 7,668,730; 7,765,106; 7,765,107; 7,895,059; 8,457,988; and 8,589,182 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 500mg/ml sodium oxybate oral solution. On August 15, 2014, October 10, 2014, and January 8, 2015, Jazz filed additional complaints against us in view of the same ANDA filing, adding U.S. Patent Nos. 8,731,963; 8,772,306; and 8,859,619, respectively, to the case. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend these actions vigorously.

On January 21, 2014, Lyne Laboratories, Fresenius USA Manufacturing and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings filed a lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,591,938 and 8,592,480 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 169mg/5ml calcium acetate oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. The case has been settled on confidential terms with a stipulation of dismissal, which we expect will be entered by the Court presently.

On February 14, 2014 and August 15, 2014, Forest Laboratories, Inc., Forest Laboratories Holdings, Ltd., and Adamas Pharmaceuticals, Inc., filed lawsuits against us and our Anchen subsidiary in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,039,009; 8,168,209; 8,173,708; 8,283,379; 8,329,752; 8,362,085; and 8,598,233 because we submitted ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 7, 14, 21, and 28 mg memantine hydrochloride extended release capsules. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On January 14, 2015, a joint stipulation of dismissal was entered in the case pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement between the parties.

On April 23, 2014, Hyperion Therapeutics 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. 8,404,215 and 8,642,012 because we submitted an ANDA with Paragraph IV certifications to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g/ml glyceryl phenylbutyrate oral liquid. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On June 20, 2014, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. 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. 5,753,677 and 8,501,730 relating to our Paragraph IV certification accompanying our ANDA for approval of 15 and 30 mg tolvaptan oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement; and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On June 30, 2014, AstraZeneca 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. 7,951,400 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of eq 2.5 mg and eq 5 mg saxagliptin hydrochloride oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On July 17, 2014, Glycyx Pharmaceuticals and Salix 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. 6,197,341 and 8,497,256 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 1.1 g balsalazide disodium oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On August 6, 2014, Prometheus Labs 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. 6,284,770 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 0.5 and 1.0 mg alosetron hydrochloride tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. On November 17, 2014, the court stayed our case pending the outcome of the appeal of the first Paragraph IV filer’s victory in the District Court.

On August 19, 2014, Hospira, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment complaint against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in view of the FDA’s approval of our ANDA for dexmedetomidine hydrochloride injection, concentrate (100 mcg/ml) vials pursuant to our submission and statement under section viii. On August 20, 2014, we moved to intervene in the case on the side of the FDA. On August 25, 2014, we filed a declaratory judgment complaint against Hospira, Inc. in view of U.S. Patent No. 6,716,867 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On September 5, 2014, the Maryland Court ruled in favor of the FDA, Par and joint intervenor Mylan, Inc. on summary judgment, and Hospira, Inc. and its intervenor/co-complainant Sandoz appealed that judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. On October 29, 2014, all parties stipulated jointly to a dismissal of all of the cases (Maryland, New Jersey, and the Fourth Circuit) pursuant to a confidential settlement agreement.

On October 10, 2014, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG 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. 5,665,772; 6,004,973; and 6,455,518 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 0.25, 0.5, and 0.75 mg everolimus tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On November 19, 2014, we filed a declaratory judgment action against GlaxoSmithKline and Aptalis in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Patent No. 7,919,115 in view of our April 11, 2012 submission of an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA seeking approval for lamotrigine orally disintegrating tablets 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg. On January 30, 2015, the consent judgment was entered.

Under a Development and Supply Agreement between Pharmaceutics International, Inc. (“PII”) and Par Sterile, PII agreed to develop and manufacture, and Par Sterile agreed to market and sell, certain pharmaceutical products, including zoledronic acid, the generic version of Zometa® and Reclast®. Under the Agreement, the parties agreed to share equally all mutually agreed expenses and costs of Paragraph IV proceedings related to the product, including any costs and expenses related to any mutually agreed upon settlement. On February 20, 2013, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation filed a lawsuit against PII, along with several other defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, for filing ANDAs with Paragraph IV certifications seeking FDA approval of both zoledronic acid eq 4 mg base/5 ml vials and zoledronic acid eq 5 mg base/100 ml bottles. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the sale of generic versions of Reclast® and Zometa® would infringe one or more of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,324,189; 7,932,241; and 8,052,987 and seeks (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit; and (iii) damages or other monetary relief in light of commercial manufacture, use, offers to sell, or sale of the ANDA products. On March 1, 2013, the District Court denied Novartis’s request for a temporary restraining order against PII and the other defendants. On March 4, 2013, Par Sterile began distribution of PII’s generic Zometa® product and began distribution of the generic Reclast® product in December 2013. On December 3, 2014, in view of the foregoing, Novartis sued Par Sterile in the same court, seeking (i) a finding of infringement, validity, and/or enforceability; (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit; and (iii) damages or other monetary relief in light of commercial manufacture, use, offers to sell, or sale of the ANDA products. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On December 18, 2014, and January 23, 2015, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG filed lawsuits against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaints allege infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,665,772; 7,297,703; and 7,741,338 518 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 2.5, 5, 7.5, and 10 mg everolimus tablets. The complaints seek (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend these actions vigorously.

On January 16, 2015, Supernus Pharmaceuticals 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. 8,298,576; 8,298,580; 8,663,683; and 8,877,248 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 25, 50, 100, and 200 mg topiramate extended release capsules. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On January 21, 2015, Tris Pharma, Inc., 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. 8,062,667; 8,287,903; 8,465,765; 8,563,033; and 8,778,390 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5 mg/ml methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release oral suspension. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On February 2, 2015, Cosmo Technologies, Ltd and Santarus, Inc. 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. 7,410,651; 7,431,943; 8,293,273; 8,784,888; 8,895,064; and RE43,799 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 9 mg budesonide tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On February 20, 2015, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Ferring International Center S.A. 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. 8,450,338 and 8,481,083 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 10/3.5/12 g sodium picosulfate/magnesium oxide/citric acid packets for oral solution. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On February 26, 2015, Shire, LLC 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. RE41,148 and RE42,096 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 mg mixed amphetamine salts extended release capsules. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

On March 6, 2015, BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. and Merck & Cie 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. 7,566,462; 7,566,714; 7,612,073; 7,727,987; 8,003,126; 8,067,416; RE43,797; and 8,318,745 because we submitted an ANDA with a Paragraph IV certification to the FDA for approval of 100 mg sapropterin dihydrochloride oral tablets. The complaint seeks (i) a finding of infringement and (ii) a permanent injunction be entered, terminating at the expiration of the patents-in-suit. We intend to defend this action vigorously.

Industry Related Matters

Beginning in September 2003, we, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, have been named as a defendant in actions brought by the Attorneys General of Illinois, Kansas, and Utah, as well as a state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC, alleging generally that the defendants defrauded the state Medicaid systems by purportedly reporting or causing the reporting of AWP and/or “Wholesale Acquisition Costs” that exceeded the actual selling price of the defendants’ prescription drugs. During the year ended December 31, 2013, we recorded $25.7 million as “Settlements and loss contingencies, net” on the consolidated statements of operations as we continued to periodically assess and estimate our remaining potential liability. On January 28, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Kansas for $1.8 million. On February 5, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Utah for $2.1 million. On June 2, 2014, we settled the claims brought by the State of Illinois for $28.5 million, including attorneys’ fees and costs. The amounts provided for 2013 represents the amounts settled, less amounts previously accrued. Other than as described below, all of the above AWP cases against the Company have been concluded.

On February 17, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court for the State of Wisconsin dismissed the state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the state of Wisconsin by Peggy Lautenschlager and Bauer & Bach, LLC. On June 12, 2014, the Dane County Circuit Court denied the plaintiffs’ renewed motion to amend the complaint and issued a final order of dismissal on the merits, without prejudice. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the ruling, and on September 22, 2014, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals dismissed the plaintiffs’ appeal. On August 11, 2014, plaintiffs filed a similar AWP qui tam action under seal in the Dane County Circuit Court, and the State of Wisconsin declined to intervene on December 19, 2014. On January 13, 2015, the Dane County Circuit Court unsealed the complaint. We intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit.

The Attorneys General of Florida, Indiana and Virginia and the U.S. 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. The aforementioned subpoenas and civil investigative demands culminated in the federal and state law qui tam action brought on behalf of the United States and several states by Bernard Lisitza. The complaint was unsealed on August 30, 2011. The United States intervened in this action on July 8, 2011 and filed a separate complaint on September 9, 2011, alleging claims for violations of the Federal False Claims Act and common law fraud. The states of Michigan and Indiana have also intervened as to claims arising under their respective state false claims acts, common law fraud, and unjust enrichment. We intend to vigorously defend these lawsuits.

Other

On March 19, 2009, we were served with a subpoena by the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") requesting documents related to Par Specialty’s marketing of Megace® ES. The subpoena indicated that the DOJ was investigating promotional practices in the sales and marketing of Megace® ES. We cooperated with the DOJ in this inquiry. On March 5, 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ that terminated the DOJ’s investigation. The settlement agreement provided for our payment of $45.0 million (plus interest and fees) and included a plea agreement with the New Jersey Criminal Division of the DOJ in which the Company admitted to a single count of misdemeanor misbranding, a civil settlement with the DOJ, a state settlement encompassing forty-nine states (one state declined to participate due to the small amount of its potential recovery), and a release from each of these entities in favor of the Company related to the practices at issue in the terminated investigation. The Company accrued for the settlement in the period from January 1, 2012 through September 28, 2012 (Predecessor). The settlement was paid in 2013.

On August 6, 2014, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut requesting documents related to our agreement with Covis Pharma S.a.r.l. to distribute an authorized generic version of Covis’s Lanoxin® (digoxin) oral tablets. We completed our response on October 28, 2014.

On December 5, 2014, we received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ requesting documents related to communications with competitors regarding our authorized generic version of Covis’s Lanoxin® (digoxin) oral tablets and our generic doxycycline products. We intend to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice’s inquiry.

On February 3, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from Office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska instructing production of, among other documents, all production in the on-going lawsuit filed against us in 2009 by the Bureau of Competition for the FTC and currently on remand to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, described above under “Patent related matters.” We intend to comply fully with the Civil Investigative Demand.

On February 9, 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand from the FTC instructing production of, among other documents, all documents related to our license agreement and manufacturing and supply agreement with Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc. relating to our sale of clonidine hydrochloride extended release tablets, the generic version of Concordia’s Kapvay®. We intend to comply fully with the Civil Investigative Demand.

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 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.