LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2015
Loss Contingency, Information about Litigation Matters [Abstract]
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, the Company also initiates actions or files counterclaims. The Company could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets. Certain of these proceedings and actions are described below. Unless otherwise indicated, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares to decline. Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries Legacy Biovail Matters On May 16, 2008, Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BPI”), the Company’s former subsidiary, entered into a written plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) for the District of Massachusetts whereby it agreed to plead guilty to violating the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and pay a fine of $22 million. In addition, on May 16, 2008, the Company entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAO whereby the USAO agreed to decline prosecution of Biovail Corporation (“Biovail”) in exchange for continuing cooperation and a civil settlement agreement and pay a civil penalty of $2 million. A hearing before the U.S. District Court in Boston took place on September 14, 2009 and the plea was approved. In addition, as part of the overall settlement, Biovail entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") and the Department of Health and Human Services on September 11, 2009. The CIA required the Company to have a compliance program in place and to undertake a set of defined corporate integrity obligations for a five-year term which concluded on September 10, 2014. The CIA also included requirements for an annual independent review of these obligations. The Company submitted its final annual report to the OIG on February 6, 2015. The matter has been closed by the OIG. Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission On May 2, 2012, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation ("Medicis") received a civil investigative demand from the FTC requiring that Medicis provide to the FTC information and documents relating to various settlement and other agreements with makers of generic SOLODYN® products following patent infringement claims and litigation, each of which was previously filed with the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and other efforts principally relating to SOLODYN®. On June 7, 2013, Medicis received an additional civil investigative demand relating to such settlements, agreements and efforts. Medicis is cooperating with this investigative process. If, at the conclusion of this process, the FTC believes that any of the agreements or efforts violates antitrust laws, it could challenge Medicis through a civil administrative or judicial proceeding. If the FTC ultimately challenges the agreements, we would expect to vigorously defend any such action. Subpoena from the New York Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services On June 29, 2011, B&L received a subpoena from the New York Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding payments and communications between B&L and medical professionals related to its pharmaceutical products Lotemax® and Besivance®. The government has indicated that the subpoena was issued in connection with a civil investigation, and B&L is cooperating fully with the government’s investigation. B&L has heard of no additional activity at this time, and whether the government’s investigation is ongoing or will result in further requests for information is unknown. B&L and the Company will continue to work with the Office of Inspector General regarding the scope of the subpoena and any additional specific information that may be requested. ISTA Settlement with Department of Justice On or about May 24, 2013 (prior to the Company’s acquisition of B&L in August 2013), B&L’s subsidiary, ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“ISTA”), reached agreement with the U.S. government to resolve and conclude civil and criminal allegations against ISTA. The settlement involved conduct by ISTA that occurred between January 2006 and March 2011, prior to B&L’s acquisition of ISTA in June 2012. B&L was aware of the government investigation prior to its acquisition, and fully cooperated with the government to resolve the matter. In connection with the settlement, ISTA pled guilty to certain charges and paid approximately $34 million in civil and criminal fines, including interest and attorney’s fees. In addition, B&L agreed to maintain a specified compliance and ethics program and to annually certify compliance with this requirement to the Department of Justice for a period of three years. Failure to comply with the requirements of the settlement could result in fines. Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania The Company has received a letter dated September 10, 2015 from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stating that they are investigating potential violations of the False Claims Act arising out of Biovail Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s treatment of certain service agreements with wholesalers when calculating and reporting Average Manufacturer Prices in connection with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The letter requests that the Company voluntarily produce documents and information relating to the investigation. The Company intends to respond to the request. Subpoena from the United States Department of Justice On September 15, 2015, B&L received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice regarding payments and agreements between B&L and medical professionals related to its surgical products Crystalens® IOL and Victus® femtosecond laser platform. The government has indicated that the subpoena was issued in connection with its criminal investigation into possible violations of Federal health care laws. B&L is cooperating with the government’s investigation. Subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York On or about October 14, 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Most of the materials requested by the subpoenas relate to documents with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs, and also include requests relating to financial support provided by the company for patients, distribution of the Company's products, information provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and pricing decisions. The Company is reviewing the subpoenas and intends to cooperate with the investigations. Voluntary Request Letter from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission On or about October 16, 2015, the Company received a voluntary request letter from the FTC with respect to its non-public investigation into our recent acquisition of Paragon Holdings I, Inc. (“Paragon”). In the letter, the FTC has requested that the Company provide, on a voluntary basis, certain information and documentation relating to its acquisition of Paragon. The Company is reviewing the letter and the information request and intends to cooperate with the investigation. Securities Allergan Securities Litigation On August 1, 2014, Allergan Inc. ("Allergan") commenced the federal securities litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Valeant, Valeant’s subsidiary AGMS Inc. (“AGMS”), Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. ("Pershing Square"), PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC (“PS Fund 1”) and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-01214-DOC). The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections 13(d), 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman filed Counterclaims against Allergan and the members of the Allergan Board of Directors alleging violations of Sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied in part and granted in part a motion filed by plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction. The Court directed the defendants to make certain additional disclosures, and otherwise denied the motion. On January 28, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that all defendants violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and SEC rules under that section. The amended complaint also asserted violations of Sections 13(d) and Schedule 13D thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal of all claims. Allergan Shareholder Class Action On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company, Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The motion remains pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. Salix Shareholder Class Actions Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement with Salix, 6 purported stockholder class actions were filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the “Salix Board”), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc. (“Sun Merger Sub”). On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The operative complaint alleges generally that the members of the Salix Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Salix through an allegedly inadequate sales process and for allegedly inadequate consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protections. The complaint also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, money damages and unspecified attorneys’ and other fees and costs. An initial briefing schedule for Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss has been set. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter. Valeant Securities Class Action On October 22 and 23, 2015, two putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors, captioned Potter v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7658) and Chen v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679). The actions allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on a behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Valeant stock between February 23, 2015 (February 28, 2015 in Chen) and October 20, 2015 (October 21, 2015 in Chen). The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies and the Company's relationship with Philidor. The Company believes the actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Antitrust Solodyn® Antitrust Class Actions Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys’ fees. By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (‘‘JPML’’) centralized the suits in the District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper. After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 2 and various state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws. The Company was dismissed from the case, but the litigation will continue against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the remaining claims. Discovery has recently commenced. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to dismiss the class action complaints was pending, 2 additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain retail pharmacy and grocery chains making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs. Those suits have been centralized with the class action suits in the District of Massachusetts. Medicis has not yet responded to the non-class action complaints. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions. Intellectual Property AntiGrippin® Litigation 2 suits have been brought against the Company’s subsidiary, Natur Produkt International, JSC ("Natur Produkt") seeking lost profits in connection with the registration by Natur Produkt of its AntiGrippin® trademark. The plaintiffs in these matters allege that Natur Produkt violated Russian competition law by preventing plaintiffs from producing and marketing their products under certain brand names. The first matter (Case No. A-56-23056/2013, Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg) was accepted for proceedings on June 24, 2013 and a hearing was held on November 28, 2013. In a decision dated December 4, 2013, the court found in favor of the plaintiff (AnviLab) and awarded the plaintiff lost profits in the amount of approximately RUR 1.66 billion (being approximately $50 million at the December 4, 2013 decision date). This charge was recognized in the fourth quarter of 2013 in Other expense (income) in the consolidated statements of income. Natur Produkt appealed this decision, and a hearing in the appeal proceeding was held on March 16, 2014. The appeal court found in favor of Natur Produkt and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in full. Following this decision, the Company concluded that the potential loss was no longer probable, and therefore the reserve was reversed in the first quarter of 2014 in Other expense (income) in the consolidated statements of income. Anvilab appealed the appeal court’s decision to the cassation court. On June 19, 2014, the cassation court resolved that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property (IP) court in this instance. The hearing before the IP court was held on July 30, 2014 and August 1, 2014. The IP Court found in favor of the plaintiff and ruled to send the case for the second review to the court of the first instance, indicating that the court of the first instance should decide on the amount of damages suffered by Anvilab. Natur Produkt appealed the decision of the IP Court to the Supreme Court on September 15, 2014, but, on October 22, 2014, the Supreme Court denied that appeal and the matter was sent back to the court of first instance for the second review. The court of first instance appointed an expert to provide a report on the claimed lost profit amount, which was provided on or about March 10, 2015. Hearings before the court of first instance in this matter were held on March 12, 2015 and April 9, 2015. Following the April 9, 2015 hearing, the court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff lost profits in the amount of approximately RUR 1.66 billion. Natur Produkt filed an appeal against this decision, both as to the merits and the quantum of damages, to the appeal court on May 15, 2015. The hearing before the appeal court was held on July 28, 2015 and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Subsequently, Natur Produkt filed an appeal to the IP Court. At a hearing held on October 6, 2015, the IP Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and upheld the decision of the appeal court. Natur Produkt intends to appeal to the Supreme Court by the end of October 2015. As Natur Produkt’s appeal to the IP Court did not delay enforcement of the appeal court’s decision, Natur Produkt was required to pay the claimed amount of RUR 1.66 billion (being approximately $25 million as of the payment date) to the plaintiff, via bailiffs’ account, on September 28, 2015. The Company recognized the $25 million charge in the third quarter of 2015 in Other expense (income) in the consolidated statements of income. Natur Produkt was served with a claim in the second matter (Case No. A-56-38592/2013, Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg) on July 16, 2013 by the plaintiff in that matter (ZAO Tsentr Vnedreniya PROTEK (“Protek”)). A hearing was held in this matter on September 29, 2013 and, on October 18, 2013, the court found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek filed an appeal of the decision on November 26, 2013. A hearing in the appeal proceeding was held on January 30, 2014 and the appeal court also found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek appealed that decision to the cassation court (Case No. A-56-38592/2013) and, on July 7, 2014, the cassation court also found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek did not exercise its right to appeal the cassation court decision to the Supreme Court. Patent Litigation/Paragraph IV Matters The Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain patent infringement proceedings in the United States, including as arising from claims filed by the Company in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification received from third parties respecting their pending ANDA applications for generic versions of certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, including Prolensa®, Apriso® and Uceris®, or other similar suits. These matters are proceeding in the ordinary course. General Civil Actions Afexa Class Action On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX® to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the Plaintiff’s claim for failure to state a cause of action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff’s amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain amendments and a new certification hearing is expected to be held in early 2016. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. R&O Pharmacy Complaint On October 6, 2015, R&O Pharmacy, LLC (“R&O”) filed a complaint against Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC (“VPNA”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:15-cv-07846). R&O’s lawsuit does not seek damages, but seeks a declaration of rights against VPNA that R&O owes no duties or amounts to VPNA. VPNA’s response to the lawsuit is due on October 29, 2015. VPNA believes that R&O’s lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend against the allegations. To that end, VPNA intends to answer R&O’s complaint, deny that R&O is entitled to the relief it seeks and file its own counterclaim against R&O for amounts due from R&O to VPNA. Prior to this dispute, VPNA had been paid approximately $18 million for all inventory shipped to R&O which was later dispensed by R&O and reimbursed by patients or payors through the end of the second quarter of 2015. Since the dispute, R&O is not cooperating with VPNA in identifying amounts R&O has achieved on sales of VPNA’s products. VPNA has ceased shipping further inventory to R&O. VPNA is therefore estimating that it is owed approximately $25 million, based upon amounts previously reported by R&O for prescription dispensed and the estimated net sales value of inventory that VPNA still believes R&O possesses. As of September 30, 2015, $19 million has been reflected as a receivable in the Company’s financial statements, which the Company believes is fully collectible. Product Liability Matters MoistureLoc™ Product Liability Lawsuits Currently, B&L has been served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 321 currently active product liability lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State Consolidated Proceeding described below, as well as in certain other U.S. state courts, on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™. 2 consolidated cases were established to handle MoistureLoc™ claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second, on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State, and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding. On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation testimony with regard to non-fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from testifying that MoistureLoc™ caused non-fusarium infections. On September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling. On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial court’s ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims. On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to renew, and granted B&L’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was argued January 20, 2015. The Court issued its decision on February 10, 2015, denying plaintiffs’ appeal to renew and affirming the lower court’s decision granting B&L’s motion for summary judgment regarding all remaining non-fusarium claims. On March 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to appeal this decision, which was denied on May 21, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to appeal from that decision to the New York State Court of Appeals on July 1, 2015. B&L filed its brief in opposition on July 13, 2015. On September 22, 2015, the New York State Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to appeal. Plaintiffs have exhausted all appellate remedies. All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™. Currently, B&L has settled approximately 630 cases in connection with MoistureLoc™ product liability suits. All U.S.-based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there is 1 active fusarium claim involving a claimant outside of the United States that remains pending. The parties in this active matter are involved in settlement discussions, and the Company currently expects that any potential settlement amounts would not be material. Salix Legal Proceedings The estimated fair values of the potential losses regarding the matters described below, along with other matters, are included as part of contingent liabilities assumed in the Salix Acquisition. Refer to Note 3 for additional information. DOJ Subpoena On February 1, 2013, Salix received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting documents regarding sales and promotional practices for its Xifaxan®, Relistor® and Apriso® products. Salix and the Company are continuing to respond to the subpoena and are cooperating fully with the subpoena and related government investigation. Salix SEC Investigation The SEC is conducting a formal investigation into possible securities law violations by Salix relating to disclosures by Salix of inventory amounts in the distribution channel and related issues in press releases, on analyst calls and in Salix’s various SEC filings, as well as related accounting issues. Salix and the Company are cooperating with the SEC in its investigation, including through the production of documents to the SEC Enforcement Staff. We cannot predict the outcome or the duration of the SEC investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on Salix or the Company arising out of the SEC investigation. Salix Securities Litigation Beginning on November 7, 2014, 3 putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with Salix’s disclosures regarding certain products, including with respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal controls. 2 of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and are captioned: Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)). These two actions have been consolidated under the caption In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (Case No. 14-CV-8925 (KMW)). Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss have been fully briefed and the parties await the scheduling of oral argument. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter. A third action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D), but was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, the Company also initiates actions or files counterclaims. The Company could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets. Certain of these proceedings and actions are described below.

Unless otherwise indicated, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares to decline.

Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries

Legacy Biovail Matters

On May 16, 2008, Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“BPI”), the Company’s former subsidiary, entered into a written plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office (“USAO”) for the District of Massachusetts whereby it agreed to plead guilty to violating the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and pay a fine of $22 million.

In addition, on May 16, 2008, the Company entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAO whereby the USAO agreed to decline prosecution of Biovail Corporation (“Biovail”) in exchange for continuing cooperation and a civil settlement agreement and pay a civil penalty of $2 million. A hearing before the U.S. District Court in Boston took place on September 14, 2009 and the plea was approved.

In addition, as part of the overall settlement, Biovail entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") and the Department of Health and Human Services on September 11, 2009. The CIA required the Company to have a compliance program in place and to undertake a set of defined corporate integrity obligations for a five-year term which concluded on September 10, 2014. The CIA also included requirements for an annual independent review of these obligations. The Company submitted its final annual report to the OIG on February 6, 2015. The matter has been closed by the OIG.

Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission

On May 2, 2012, Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation ("Medicis") received a civil investigative demand from the FTC requiring that Medicis provide to the FTC information and documents relating to various settlement and other agreements with makers of generic SOLODYN® products following patent infringement claims and litigation, each of which was previously filed with the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and other efforts principally relating to SOLODYN®. On June 7, 2013, Medicis received an additional civil investigative demand relating to such settlements, agreements and efforts. Medicis is cooperating with this investigative process. If, at the conclusion of this process, the FTC believes that any of the agreements or efforts violates antitrust laws, it could challenge Medicis through a civil administrative or judicial proceeding. If the FTC ultimately challenges the agreements, we would expect to vigorously defend any such action.

Subpoena from the New York Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

On June 29, 2011, B&L received a subpoena from the New York Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services regarding payments and communications between B&L and medical professionals related to its pharmaceutical products Lotemax® and Besivance®. The government has indicated that the subpoena was issued in connection with a civil investigation, and B&L is cooperating fully with the government’s investigation. B&L has heard of no additional activity at this time, and whether the government’s investigation is ongoing or will result in further requests for information is unknown. B&L and the Company will continue to work with the Office of Inspector General regarding the scope of the subpoena and any additional specific information that may be requested.

ISTA Settlement with Department of Justice

On or about May 24, 2013 (prior to the Company’s acquisition of B&L in August 2013), B&L’s subsidiary, ISTA Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“ISTA”), reached agreement with the U.S. government to resolve and conclude civil and criminal allegations against ISTA. The settlement involved conduct by ISTA that occurred between January 2006 and March 2011, prior to B&L’s acquisition of ISTA in June 2012. B&L was aware of the government investigation prior to its acquisition, and fully cooperated with the government to resolve the matter. In connection with the settlement, ISTA pled guilty to certain charges and paid approximately $34 million in civil and criminal fines, including interest and attorney’s fees. In addition, B&L agreed to maintain a specified compliance and ethics program and to annually certify compliance with this requirement to the Department of Justice for a period of three years. Failure to comply with the requirements of the settlement could result in fines.

Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

The Company has received a letter dated September 10, 2015 from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stating that they are investigating potential violations of the False Claims Act arising out of Biovail Pharmaceutical, Inc.’s treatment of certain service agreements with wholesalers when calculating and reporting Average Manufacturer Prices in connection with the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program. The letter requests that the Company voluntarily produce documents and information relating to the investigation. The Company intends to respond to the request.

Subpoena from the United States Department of Justice

On September 15, 2015, B&L received a subpoena from the United States Department of Justice regarding payments and agreements between B&L and medical professionals related to its surgical products Crystalens® IOL and Victus® femtosecond laser platform. The government has indicated that the subpoena was issued in connection with its criminal investigation into possible violations of Federal health care laws. B&L is cooperating with the government’s investigation.

Subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York

On or about October 14, 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts and a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Most of the materials requested by the subpoenas relate to documents with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs, and also include requests relating to financial support provided by the company for patients, distribution of the Company's products, information provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and pricing decisions. The Company is reviewing the subpoenas and intends to cooperate with the investigations.

Voluntary Request Letter from the U.S. Federal Trade Commission

On or about October 16, 2015, the Company received a voluntary request letter from the FTC with respect to its non-public investigation into our recent acquisition of Paragon Holdings I, Inc. (“Paragon”). In the letter, the FTC has requested that the Company provide, on a voluntary basis, certain information and documentation relating to its acquisition of Paragon. The Company is reviewing the letter and the information request and intends to cooperate with the investigation.

Securities

Allergan Securities Litigation

On August 1, 2014, Allergan Inc. ("Allergan") commenced the federal securities litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against the Company, Valeant, Valeant’s subsidiary AGMS Inc. (“AGMS”), Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P. ("Pershing Square"), PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1, LLC (“PS Fund 1”) and William A. Ackman (Allergan, Inc. et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-01214-DOC). The lawsuit alleged violations of Sections 13(d), 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On August 19, 2014, the Company, Valeant, AGMS, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman filed Counterclaims against Allergan and the members of the Allergan Board of Directors alleging violations of Sections 14(a), 14(e) and 20A of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC under those Sections. On November 4, 2014, the Court denied in part and granted in part a motion filed by plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction. The Court directed the defendants to make certain additional disclosures, and otherwise denied the motion. On January 28, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that all defendants violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and SEC rules under that section. The amended complaint also asserted violations of Sections 13(d) and Schedule 13D thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. On April 9, 2015, the parties filed a stipulation providing for the voluntary dismissal of all claims.

Allergan Shareholder Class Action

On December 16, 2014, Anthony Basile filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Company, Valeant, AGMS, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Basile v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-cv-02004-DOC). On June 26, 2015, lead plaintiffs the State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System and Patrick T. Johnson filed an amended complaint against the Company, Valeant, J. Michael Pearson, Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, PS Fund 1 and William A. Ackman. The amended complaint alleges claims on behalf of a putative class of sellers of Allergan securities between February 25, 2014 and April 21, 2014, against all defendants asserting violations of Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act and rules promulgated by the SEC thereunder and Section 20A of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint also alleges violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Pershing Square, PS Management, GP, LLC, William A. Ackman and J. Michael Pearson. The amended complaint seeks, among other relief, money damages, equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On August 7, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety. The motion remains pending. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.

Salix Shareholder Class Actions

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement with Salix, 6 purported stockholder class actions were filed challenging the Salix Acquisition. All of the actions were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, and alleged claims against some or all of the board of directors of Salix (the “Salix Board”), the Company, Salix, Valeant and Sun Merger Sub, Inc. (“Sun Merger Sub”). On March 17, 2015, the Court consolidated the actions under the caption Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. Shareholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.10721-CB On September 25, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The operative complaint alleges generally that the members of the Salix Board breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders, and that the other defendants aided and abetted such breaches, by seeking to sell Salix through an allegedly inadequate sales process and for allegedly inadequate consideration and by agreeing to allegedly preclusive deal protections. The complaint also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9 filed by Salix in connection with the Salix Acquisition contained inaccurate or materially misleading information about, among other things, the Salix Acquisition and the sales process leading up to the Merger Agreement. The complaint seeks, among other things, money damages and unspecified attorneys’ and other fees and costs. An initial briefing schedule for Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss has been set. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter.

Valeant Securities Class Action

On October 22 and 23, 2015, two putative securities class actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors, captioned Potter v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7658) and Chen v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679). The actions allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on a behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Valeant stock between February 23, 2015 (February 28, 2015 in Chen) and October 20, 2015 (October 21, 2015 in Chen). The allegations relate to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company's use of specialty pharmacies and the Company's relationship with Philidor. The Company believes the actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Antitrust

Solodyn® Antitrust Class Actions

Beginning in July 2013, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed against Medicis, the Company and various manufacturers of generic forms of Solodyn, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to exclude competition from the market for minocycline hydrochloride extended release tablets, a prescription drug for the treatment of acne marketed by Medicis under the brand name, Solodyn. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1, 2, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws, and further alleged that the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their alleged conduct. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and, where applicable, treble, multiple, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys’ fees. By order dated February 25, 2014, the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (‘‘JPML’’) centralized the suits in the District of Massachusetts, under the caption In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:14-md-02503-DJC, before U.S. District Judge Denise Casper. After the Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs and the End-Payor Class Plaintiffs each filed a consolidated amended class action complaint on September 12, 2014, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. On August 14, 2015, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 2 and various state laws but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to claims brought under Sherman Act, Section 1 and other state laws. The Company was dismissed from the case, but the litigation will continue against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the remaining claims. Discovery has recently commenced. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to dismiss the class action complaints was pending, 2 additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain retail pharmacy and grocery chains making similar allegations and seeking similar relief to that sought by Direct Purchaser Class Plaintiffs. Those suits have been centralized with the class action suits in the District of Massachusetts. Medicis has not yet responded to the non-class action complaints. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions.

Intellectual Property

AntiGrippin® Litigation

2 suits have been brought against the Company’s subsidiary, Natur Produkt International, JSC ("Natur Produkt") seeking lost profits in connection with the registration by Natur Produkt of its AntiGrippin® trademark. The plaintiffs in these matters allege that Natur Produkt violated Russian competition law by preventing plaintiffs from producing and marketing their products under certain brand names.

The first matter (Case No. A-56-23056/2013, Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg) was accepted for proceedings on June 24, 2013 and a hearing was held on November 28, 2013. In a decision dated December 4, 2013, the court found in favor of the plaintiff (AnviLab) and awarded the plaintiff lost profits in the amount of approximately RUR 1.66 billion (being approximately $50 million at the December 4, 2013 decision date). This charge was recognized in the fourth quarter of 2013 in Other expense (income) in the consolidated statements of income. Natur Produkt appealed this decision, and a hearing in the appeal proceeding was held on March 16, 2014. The appeal court found in favor of Natur Produkt and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim in full. Following this decision, the Company concluded that the potential loss was no longer probable, and therefore the reserve was reversed in the first quarter of 2014 in Other expense (income) in the consolidated statements of income. Anvilab appealed the appeal court’s decision to the cassation court. On June 19, 2014, the cassation court resolved that the matter is within the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property (IP) court in this instance. The hearing before the IP court was held on July 30, 2014 and August 1, 2014. The IP Court found in favor of the plaintiff and ruled to send the case for the second review to the court of the first instance, indicating that the court of the first instance should decide on the amount of damages suffered by Anvilab. Natur Produkt appealed the decision of the IP Court to the Supreme Court on September 15, 2014, but, on October 22, 2014, the Supreme Court denied that appeal and the matter was sent back to the court of first instance for the second review. The court of first instance appointed an expert to provide a report on the claimed lost profit amount, which was provided on or about March 10, 2015. Hearings before the court of first instance in this matter were held on March 12, 2015 and April 9, 2015. Following the April 9, 2015 hearing, the court of first instance ruled in favor of the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff lost profits in the amount of approximately RUR 1.66 billion. Natur Produkt filed an appeal against this decision, both as to the merits and the quantum of damages, to the appeal court on May 15, 2015. The hearing before the appeal court was held on July 28, 2015 and the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Subsequently, Natur Produkt filed an appeal to the IP Court. At a hearing held on October 6, 2015, the IP Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and upheld the decision of the appeal court. Natur Produkt intends to appeal to the Supreme Court by the end of October 2015. As Natur Produkt’s appeal to the IP Court did not delay enforcement of the appeal court’s decision, Natur Produkt was required to pay the claimed amount of RUR 1.66 billion (being approximately $25 million as of the payment date) to the plaintiff, via bailiffs’ account, on September 28, 2015. The Company recognized the $25 million charge in the third quarter of 2015 in Other expense (income) in the consolidated statements of income.

Natur Produkt was served with a claim in the second matter (Case No. A-56-38592/2013, Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg) on July 16, 2013 by the plaintiff in that matter (ZAO Tsentr Vnedreniya PROTEK (“Protek”)). A hearing was held in this matter on September 29, 2013 and, on October 18, 2013, the court found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek filed an appeal of the decision on November 26, 2013. A hearing in the appeal proceeding was held on January 30, 2014 and the appeal court also found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek appealed that decision to the cassation court (Case No. A-56-38592/2013) and, on July 7, 2014, the cassation court also found in favor of Natur Produkt. Protek did not exercise its right to appeal the cassation court decision to the Supreme Court.

Patent Litigation/Paragraph IV Matters

The Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain patent infringement proceedings in the United States, including as arising from claims filed by the Company in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification received from third parties respecting their pending ANDA applications for generic versions of certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, including Prolensa®, Apriso® and Uceris®, or other similar suits. These matters are proceeding in the ordinary course.

General Civil Actions

Afexa Class Action

On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which seeks an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserts that Afexa and the Company made false representations respecting Cold-FX® to residents of British Columbia who purchased the product during the applicable period and that the proposed class has suffered damages as a result. On November 8, 2013, the Plaintiff served an amended notice of civil claim which sought to re-characterize the representation claims and broaden them from what was originally claimed. On December 8, 2014, the Company filed a motion to strike certain elements of the Plaintiff’s claim for failure to state a cause of action. In response, the Plaintiff proposed further amendments to its claim. The hearing on the motion to strike and the Plaintiff’s amended claim was held on February 4, 2015. The Court allowed certain amendments and a new certification hearing is expected to be held in early 2016. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter.

R&O Pharmacy Complaint

On October 6, 2015, R&O Pharmacy, LLC (“R&O”) filed a complaint against Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC (“VPNA”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:15-cv-07846). R&O’s lawsuit does not seek damages, but seeks a declaration of rights against VPNA that R&O owes no duties or amounts to VPNA. VPNA’s response to the lawsuit is due on October 29, 2015. VPNA believes that R&O’s lawsuit is without merit and will vigorously defend against the allegations.

To that end, VPNA intends to answer R&O’s complaint, deny that R&O is entitled to the relief it seeks and file its own counterclaim against R&O for amounts due from R&O to VPNA. Prior to this dispute, VPNA had been paid approximately $18 million for all inventory shipped to R&O which was later dispensed by R&O and reimbursed by patients or payors through the end of the second quarter of 2015. Since the dispute, R&O is not cooperating with VPNA in identifying amounts R&O has achieved on sales of VPNA’s products. VPNA has ceased shipping further inventory to R&O. VPNA is therefore estimating that it is owed approximately $25 million, based upon amounts previously reported by R&O for prescription dispensed and the estimated net sales value of inventory that VPNA still believes R&O possesses. As of September 30, 2015, $19 million has been reflected as a receivable in the Company’s financial statements, which the Company believes is fully collectible.

Product Liability Matters

MoistureLoc™ Product Liability Lawsuits

Currently, B&L has been served or is aware that it has been named as a defendant in approximately 321 currently active product liability lawsuits (some with multiple plaintiffs) pending in a New York State Consolidated Proceeding described below, as well as in certain other U.S. state courts, on behalf of individuals who claim they suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™. 2 consolidated cases were established to handle MoistureLoc™ claims. First, on August 14, 2006, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation created a coordinated proceeding in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina. Second, on January 2, 2007, the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel ordered the consolidation of cases filed in New York State, and assigned the coordination responsibilities to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County. There are approximately 320 currently active non-fusarium cases pending in the New York Consolidated Proceeding. On July 15, 2009, the New York State Supreme Court overseeing the New York Consolidated Proceeding granted B&L’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ general causation testimony with regard to non-fusarium infections, which effectively excluded plaintiffs from testifying that MoistureLoc™ caused non-fusarium infections. On September 15, 2011, the New York State Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Trial Court’s ruling. On February 7, 2012, the New York Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ additional appeal. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to renew the trial court’s ruling, and B&L cross-filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss all remaining claims. On May 31, 2013, the Trial Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to renew, and granted B&L’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing all remaining non-fusarium claims. On June 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the Trial Court’s ruling. The appeal was argued January 20, 2015. The Court issued its decision on February 10, 2015, denying plaintiffs’ appeal to renew and affirming the lower court’s decision granting B&L’s motion for summary judgment regarding all remaining non-fusarium claims. On March 10, 2015, the plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to appeal this decision, which was denied on May 21, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their motion for leave to appeal from that decision to the New York State Court of Appeals on July 1, 2015. B&L filed its brief in opposition on July 13, 2015. On September 22, 2015, the New York State Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs’ motion for leave to appeal. Plaintiffs have exhausted all appellate remedies.

All matters under jurisdiction of the coordinated proceedings in the Federal District Court for the District of South Carolina have been dismissed, including individual actions for personal injury and a class action purporting to represent a class of consumers who suffered economic claims as a result of purchasing a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™.

Currently, B&L has settled approximately 630 cases in connection with MoistureLoc™ product liability suits. All U.S.-based fusarium claims have now been resolved and there is 1 active fusarium claim involving a claimant outside of the United States that remains pending. The parties in this active matter are involved in settlement discussions, and the Company currently expects that any potential settlement amounts would not be material.

Salix Legal Proceedings

The estimated fair values of the potential losses regarding the matters described below, along with other matters, are included as part of contingent liabilities assumed in the Salix Acquisition. Refer to Note 3 for additional information.

DOJ Subpoena

On February 1, 2013, Salix received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting documents regarding sales and promotional practices for its Xifaxan®, Relistor® and Apriso® products. Salix and the Company are continuing to respond to the subpoena and are cooperating fully with the subpoena and related government investigation.

Salix SEC Investigation

The SEC is conducting a formal investigation into possible securities law violations by Salix relating to disclosures by Salix of inventory amounts in the distribution channel and related issues in press releases, on analyst calls and in Salix’s various SEC filings, as well as related accounting issues. Salix and the Company are cooperating with the SEC in its investigation, including through the production of documents to the SEC Enforcement Staff. We cannot predict the outcome or the duration of the SEC investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on Salix or the Company arising out of the SEC investigation.

Salix Securities Litigation

Beginning on November 7, 2014, 3 putative class action lawsuits were filed by shareholders of Salix, each of which generally alleges that Salix and certain of its former officers and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with Salix’s disclosures regarding certain products, including with respect to disclosures concerning historic wholesaler inventory levels, business prospects and demand, reserves and internal controls. 2 of these actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and are captioned: Woburn Retirement System v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No: 1:14-CV-08925 (KMW)), and Bruyn v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., et al. (Case No. 1:14-CV-09226 (KMW)). These two actions have been consolidated under the caption In re Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (Case No. 14-CV-8925 (KMW)). Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss have been fully briefed and the parties await the scheduling of oral argument. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter. A third action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina under the caption Grignon v. Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. et al. (Case No. 5:14-cv-00804-D), but was subsequently voluntarily dismissed.