LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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 and/or debt securities 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 cooperated with this investigative process. On or about November 13, 2015, Medicis received a closing letter from the FTC stating that no further action is warranted by the FTC at this time and that the investigation has been closed. Subpoena from the New York Regional 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 Regional Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concerning an investigation being run by the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey 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 with the investigation. B&L is aware of no investigative activity at this time, and whether the government’s investigation is ongoing or will result in further requests for information is unknown. As needed, 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. The Company submitted its final annual report to the Department of Justice on February 29, 2016. The matter has concluded with the Department of Justice. 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 BPI’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 produced certain documents in response to the request and is cooperating with the government’s investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of these investigations or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of these investigations. U.S. Department of Justice Investigation On September 15, 2015, B&L received a subpoena from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding agreements and payments 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 a criminal investigation into possible violations of Federal health care laws. B&L produced certain documents in response to the subpoena and is cooperating with the investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Investigations by 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 In or about October 2015, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the District of Massachusetts and the Southern District of New York. The materials requested by those offices include documents with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs; its former relationship with Philidor and other pharmacies; the Company’s accounting treatment for sales by specialty pharmacies; financial support provided by the Company for patients; distribution of the Company's products; information provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; discounts and rebates on the Company's products; and issues related to the Company’s pricing decisions. The Company is cooperating with those investigations. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of these investigations or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of these 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 the Company's 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 produced certain documents and information in response to the request and is cooperating with the FTC in connection with this investigation. Congressional Inquiries Beginning in November 2015, the Company has received from the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging various document requests, as well as subpoenas for documents, depositions and a hearing which was held on April 27, 2016. Certain directors, officers and other employees of the Company have also received from the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging subpoenas for depositions and/or hearings. In January, 2016, the Company received from the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a document request and an invitation for the Company’s interim CEO to testify at a hearing, at which he testified on February 4, 2016. Most of the materials requested to date relate to the Company’s pricing decisions on particular drugs, as well as revenue, expense and profit information, and also include requests relating to financial support provided by the Company for patients and financial data related to the Company’s research and development program, Medicare and Medicaid. The Company is cooperating with these inquiries; however, the Company cannot predict their outcome or duration. SEC Investigation On November 18, 2015, the Company received a document subpoena from the staff of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the SEC related to its investigation of the Company, including requests for documents concerning the Company's former relationship with Philidor, its accounting practices and policies, its public disclosures and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. The Company 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 the Company arising out of the SEC investigation. Investigation by the State of North Carolina Department of Justice In the beginning of March 2016, the Company received an investigative demand from the State of North Carolina Department of Justice. The materials requested relate to the Company's Nitropress®, Isuprel® and Cuprimine® products, including documents relating to the production, marketing, distribution, sale and pricing of, and patient assistance programs covering, such products, as well as issues relating to the Company's pricing decisions for certain of its other products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Request for Information from the AMF On April 12, 2016, the Company received a request letter from the Autorité des marchés financiers (the “AMF”) requesting documents concerning the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Company’s former relationship with Philidor, the Company's accounting practices and policies and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the AMF in this matter. The Company has not received any notice of investigation from the AMF, and the Company cannot predict whether any investigation will be commenced by the AMF or, if commenced, whether any enforcement action against the Company would result from any such investigation. Investigation by the State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Securities On April 20, 2016, the Company received a document subpoena from the New Jersey State Bureau of Securities. The materials requested include documents concerning the Company’s former relationship with Philidor, its accounting treatment for sales to Philidor, its financial reporting and public disclosures and other matters. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Investigation by the State of Texas On May 27, 2014, the State of Texas served Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B&L Inc.”) with a Civil Investigative Demand concerning various price reporting matters relating to the State's Medicaid program and the amounts the State paid in reimbursement for B&L products for the period from 1995 to the date of the Civil Investigative Demand. The Company and B&L Inc. have cooperated fully with the State's investigation and have produced all of the documents requested by the State. In April 2016, the State sent B&L Inc. a demand letter claiming damages in the amount of $20 million. The Company and B&L Inc. are currently evaluating this demand letter, and at this time are unable to estimate what liability, if any, they may have with respect to this matter. 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, an alleged shareholder of Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan shareholders 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 contending that various purchases of Allergan securities by AGMS were made while in possession of material, non-public information concerning a potential tender offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and 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, and, on November 9, 2015, the court denied that motion. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters. Salix Shareholder Class Actions Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement with Salix, between February 25, 2015 and March 12, 2015, six 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. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed as of February 19, 2016. The Court has scheduled oral argument for May 19, 2016. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter. Synergetics Shareholder Class Actions On September 1, 2015, Valeant entered into a merger agreement, whereby it would acquire all shares of Synergetics USA, Inc. (“Synergetics”). The merger was announced on September 2, 2015. Following the announcement of the merger, four putative stockholder class actions were filed challenging the merger. Three of these actions were filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri and name as defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Synergetics, Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant). Those actions are captioned as follows: Murphy, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00778 (filed September 15, 2015 and amended September 23, 2015 (the “Murphy Action”)); Glorioso, et al., v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00803 (filed September 23, 2015 (the “Glorioso Action”)); and Scarantino, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00810 (filed September 28, 2015 (the “Scarantino Action”)) (collectively, the “Missouri Actions”). The fourth action, captioned Nilsen, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, et al., C.A. No. 11552-VCL (the “Delaware Action,” and together with the Missouri Actions, the “Actions”) was filed on September 28, 2015, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and named as defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. The Actions generally allege that the members of the Synergetics Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Synergetics stockholders by, among other things, conducting a flawed process in considering the transaction, agreeing to an inadequate offer price, providing incomplete and misleading information to Synergetics stockholders, and accepting unreasonable deal protection measures in the merger agreement that allegedly dissuaded other potential bidders from making competing offers. The Actions also allege that Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Missouri Actions sought, among other things, an order enjoining consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and expenses. The Delaware Action sought, among other things, an order awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and expenses. On October 2, 2015, Synergetics, each member of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiffs in the Actions, which sets forth the parties’ agreement in principle for a settlement of the Actions on the basis of the additional disclosures made in a supplement to the Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on October 2, 2015. The MOU contemplates that the parties 1) would stipulate to the certification of the consolidated Missouri Actions as a class action, consisting of a mandatory non opt-out class, that includes any and all persons who held Synergetics shares (excluding defendants, and their immediate family members, and any successors in interest thereto) at any time during the period beginning on September 1, 2015, through October 15, 2015 (the date of consummation of the merger), and 2) shall seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the release of, among other things, certain claims relating to the Actions, the merger and disclosures made in connection therewith, subject to approval of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County in the State of Missouri. On October 8, 2015 the Delaware Court of Chancery unilaterally dismissed the Delaware Action. In October 2015, the Missouri Actions were consolidated into the Murphy Action. In January 2016, the parties engaged in confirmatory discovery, including additional documents produced by Defendants and conducting two depositions. Thereafter, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on a stipulation of settlement and ancillary settlement documents, which were filed with the Court on April 25, 2016. A hearing with the Court is scheduled for April 29, 2016. The parties continue to negotiate attorneys' fees. Any amounts payable by the Company in this matter is expected to be nominal. Valeant U.S. Securities Class Action From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7809), all assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Valeant stock during various time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. 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. On December 21, 2015, several plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel to prosecute all claims. Those motions remain pending. The Company believes the actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Canadian Securities Class Actions In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O’Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O’Brien, Catucci and Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior Court by consent order. Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose material information about the Company’s business and prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company’s policies and accounting practices, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies and, in particular, the Company’s relationship with Philidor. The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O’Brien actions also assert common law claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of liability contemplated by the Code. The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that have been filed with the applicable court but which not yet been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to those outlined above. The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to pursue the actions. The Company expects that certain of these actions will be consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in any jurisdiction. In particular, on April 8, 2016, motions were heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to determine which of the actions filed in that court will proceed. The Company believes that it has viable defenses to each of the actions, and in each case 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 Defendants' 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 continues against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the remaining claims. The actions are currently in discovery. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs") 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. Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on the motion to dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed amended complaints on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on December 7, 2015. A third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March 28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions. Contact Lens Antitrust Class Actions Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L, three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 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, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys’ fees. By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML centralized the suits in the Middle District of Florida, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. After the Class Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action complaint on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently pending in the district court, and the actions are currently in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions. Intellectual Property AntiGrippin® Litigation A suit was 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 plaintiff in this matter alleged that Natur Produkt violated Russian competition law by preventing plaintiff from producing and marketing its products under certain brand names. The 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 appealed to the Supreme Court for review of the IP Court’s decision and, on December 30, 2015, the Supreme Court rejected Natur Produkt’s request for appeal. In January 2016, Natur Produkt requested clarification of this decision of the Supreme Court, but it is not anticipated that this request will result in a modification to or reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Natur Produkt’s appeal. 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 (loss) income. Following the decision of the IP Court, AnviLab filed two more claims against Natur Produkt relating to the matter described above (the “Original AnviLab Matter”). The first claim by AnviLab was filed on December 3, 2015 with the Saint Petersburg Arbitration Tribunal (Case No. A-56-89244/2015) and seeks an amount in respect of the interest payable on the amount awarded by the appeal court in the Original AnviLab Matter for the period between the date the amount was awarded by the appeal court (August 4, 2015) and the date AnviLab received the payment (September 29, 2015). A hearing in this matter was held on March 24, 2016 and a subsequent hearing was held on April 14, 2016. The second claim by AnviLab was filed on December 15, 2015 with the Saint Petersburg Arbitration Tribunal (Case No.A-56-23056/2013) and seeks an amount in respect of litigation costs related to Original AnviLab Matter. A hearing in this matter was held on February 25, 2016 and a subsequent hearing was held on April 14, 2016. The Court awarded amounts to AnviLab with respect to each of these claims. For both of these claims, the amount awarded to AnviLab was insignificant. Natur Produkt currently anticipates that it will appeal these decisions. 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 Onexton®, Relistor®, Prolensa®, Apriso®, Uceris®, Moviprep®, Acanya® and Bepreve®, or other similar suits. These matters are proceeding in the ordinary course. In addition, on or about February 16, 2016, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification dated February 11, 2016, from Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Actavis”), in which Actavis asserted that the following U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Salix Inc.”) Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Actavis’ generic rifaximin tables, 550 mg, for which an ANDA has been filed by Actavis: U.S. Patent No. 8,309,569 (the “‘569 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,642,573 (the “‘573 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,829,017 (the “‘017 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,946,252 (the “‘252 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,969,398 (the “‘398 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,045,620 (the “‘620 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,612,199 (the “‘199 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,902,206 (the “‘206 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,906,542 (the “‘542 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,915,275 (the “‘275 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,158,644 (the “‘644 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,158,781 (the “‘781 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,193,196 (the “‘196 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,518,949 (the “‘949 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,741,904 (the “‘904 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,835,452 (the “‘452 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,853,231 (the “‘231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,861,053 (the “‘053 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,452,857 (the “‘857 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,605,240 (the “‘240 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,718,608 (the “‘608 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,935,799 (the “‘799 patent”) (collectively, the “Xifaxan® Patents”). Salix Inc. holds the NDA for Xifaxan® and its affiliate, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Salix Ltd.”), is the owner of the ‘569 patent, the ‘573 patent, the ‘017 patent, the ‘252 patent and the ‘398 patent. Alfa Wassermann S.p.A. (“Alfa Wassermann”) is the owner of the ‘620 patent, the ‘199 patent, the ‘206 patent, the ‘542 patent, the ‘275 patent, the ‘644 patent, the ‘781 patent, the ‘196 patent, the ‘949 patent, the ‘904 patent, the ‘452 patent and the ‘231 patent, each of which has been exclusively licensed to Salix Inc. and its affiliate, Valeant Pharmaceuticals Luxembourg S.à r.l. (“Valeant Luxembourg”) to market Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Cedars-Sinai”) is the owner of the ‘053 patent, the ‘857 patent, the ‘240 patent, the ‘608 patent and the ‘799 patent , each of which has been exclusively licensed to Salix Inc. and its affiliate, Valeant Luxembourg, to market Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg. On March 23, 2016, Salix Inc. and its affiliates, Salix Ltd. and Valeant Luxembourg, Alfa Wassermann and Cedars-Sinai filed suit against Actavis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:16-cv-00188), pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Actavis of one or more claims of each of the Xifaxan® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Actavis’ ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. The Company believes the allegations raised in Actavis’ notice are without merit and intends to vigorously pursue this suit. 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, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and a decision is pending. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter. R&O Pharmacy Complaint On October 6, 2015, R&O filed a complaint against Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC (“VPNA”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:15-cv-07846). R&O’s lawsuit did not seek damages, but sought a declaration of rights against VPNA that R&O owes no duties or amounts to VPNA with respect to certain Company products ordered by and shipped to R&O. On October 29, 2015, VPNA filed its answer to R&O’s complaint. Also on that date, VPNA filed a counterclaim against R&O, including claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, accounting, and an open book account, with respect to these unpaid amounts. VPNA’s counterclaim sought damages in excess of $19 million. On November 19, 2015, R&O filed its answer to VPNA’s counterclaim. R&O did not assert any counterclaims. R&O generally claimed an entitlement to hold the funds achieved from the sale of Company products as an offset to potential claims arising out of Philidor’s conduct, which R&O asserts is attributable to the Company under an alter ego theory (being the theory that the Company should be responsible for Philidor’s actions in disregard of the fact that the two are separate legal entities). The Court held a scheduling conference with the parties on February 8, 2016 and set a November 2016 trial date. Subsequently, on March 8, 2016, the parties reached a confidential settlement that resolved all claims between them and, on March 10, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the resolution includes a payment by R&O to VPNA for less than the damages sought by VPNA in its counterclaim. VPNA firmly believes it acted appropriately and refutes any suggestion of wrongdoing. Product Liability Matters MoistureLoc™ Product Liability Lawsuits B&L had previously been served or was aware that it had been named as a defendant in approximately 321 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 claimed that they had suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™. Two 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 were 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™. 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 one active fusarium claim involving a claimant outside of the United States that remains pending. B&L is defending against this one active claim and the Company currently expects that any potential judgment in this matter 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 4 for additional information. Each of the Salix legal proceeding matters set out below was commenced prior to the Company’s acquisition of Salix. 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. Following recent settlement discussions, the Company, the United States and the state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit negotiating team agreed, in principle, to resolve the investigation as to the Company for $54 million, plus payment of applicable interest and reasonable relators’ attorneys’ fees. The settlement has certain material contingencies, including, without limitation, the parties negotiating satisfactory civil settlement documents and final approvals by the United States Department of Justice, the various state attorneys general and the Company. The Company can provide no assurance that the settlement will be finalized, in whole or in part, with the United States and the states. The amount of the agreement-in-principle is within the range expected by the Company at the time of acquisition, is included within the liability recorded at fair value as part of the Salix Acquisition and an adjustment, if any, to this liability will be recorded when and if the settlement is finalized. 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. The Company 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, three 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. Two 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 were fully briefed as of August 3, 2015. The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss in an order dated March 31, 2016 for the reasons stated in an opinion dated April 22, 2016. By stipulation of the parties, Defendants’ Answers to the operative Complaint will be filed on May 31, 2016. 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. Philidor Matters As mentioned above in this section, the Company is involved in certain investigations, disputes and other proceedings related to the Company’s now terminated relationship with Philidor. These include the securities putative class action litigation and the investigations by certain offices of the Department of Justice, the SEC, the request for documents and other information received from the AMF and certain Congressional committees and a document subpoena from the New Jersey State Bureau of Securities. There can be no assurances that governmental agencies or other third parties will not commence additional investigations or assert claims relating to the Company’s former relationship with Philidor or Philidor’s business practices, including claims that Philidor or its affiliated pharmacies improperly billed third parties or that that the Company is liable, directly or indirectly, for such practices. The Company is cooperating with all existing governmental investigations related to Philidor and is vigorously defending the putative class action litigation. No assurance can be given regarding the ultimate outcome of any present or future proceedings relating to Philidor.

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 and/or debt securities 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 cooperated with this investigative process. On or about November 13, 2015, Medicis received a closing letter from the FTC stating that no further action is warranted by the FTC at this time and that the investigation has been closed.

Subpoena from the New York Regional 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 Regional Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services concerning an investigation being run by the Department of Justice and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey 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 with the investigation. B&L is aware of no investigative activity at this time, and whether the government’s investigation is ongoing or will result in further requests for information is unknown. As needed, 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. The Company submitted its final annual report to the Department of Justice on February 29, 2016. The matter has concluded with the Department of Justice.

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 BPI’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 produced certain documents in response to the request and is cooperating with the government’s investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of these investigations or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of these investigations.

U.S. Department of Justice Investigation

On September 15, 2015, B&L received a subpoena from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice regarding agreements and payments 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 a criminal investigation into possible violations of Federal health care laws. B&L produced certain documents in response to the subpoena and is cooperating with the investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation.

Investigations by 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

In or about October 2015, the Company received subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the District of Massachusetts and the Southern District of New York. The materials requested by those offices include documents with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs; its former relationship with Philidor and other pharmacies; the Company’s accounting treatment for sales by specialty pharmacies; financial support provided by the Company for patients; distribution of the Company's products; information provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; discounts and rebates on the Company's products; and issues related to the Company’s pricing decisions. The Company is cooperating with those investigations. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of these investigations or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of these 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 the Company's 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 produced certain documents and information in response to the request and is cooperating with the FTC in connection with this investigation.

Congressional Inquiries

Beginning in November 2015, the Company has received from the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging various document requests, as well as subpoenas for documents, depositions and a hearing which was held on April 27, 2016. Certain directors, officers and other employees of the Company have also received from the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging subpoenas for depositions and/or hearings. In January, 2016, the Company received from the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform a document request and an invitation for the Company’s interim CEO to testify at a hearing, at which he testified on February 4, 2016. Most of the materials requested to date relate to the Company’s pricing decisions on particular drugs, as well as revenue, expense and profit information, and also include requests relating to financial support provided by the Company for patients and financial data related to the Company’s research and development program, Medicare and Medicaid. The Company is cooperating with these inquiries; however, the Company cannot predict their outcome or duration.

SEC Investigation

On November 18, 2015, the Company received a document subpoena from the staff of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the SEC related to its investigation of the Company, including requests for documents concerning the Company's former relationship with Philidor, its accounting practices and policies, its public disclosures and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. The Company 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 the Company arising out of the SEC investigation.

Investigation by the State of North Carolina Department of Justice

In the beginning of March 2016, the Company received an investigative demand from the State of North Carolina Department of Justice. The materials requested relate to the Company's Nitropress®, Isuprel® and Cuprimine® products, including documents relating to the production, marketing, distribution, sale and pricing of, and patient assistance programs covering, such products, as well as issues relating to the Company's pricing decisions for certain of its other products. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation.

Request for Information from the AMF

On April 12, 2016, the Company received a request letter from the Autorité des marchés financiers (the “AMF”) requesting documents concerning the work of the Ad Hoc Committee, the Company’s former relationship with Philidor, the Company's accounting practices and policies and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the AMF in this matter. The Company has not received any notice of investigation from the AMF, and the Company cannot predict whether any investigation will be commenced by the AMF or, if commenced, whether any enforcement action against the Company would result from any such investigation.

Investigation by the State of New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Securities

On April 20, 2016, the Company received a document subpoena from the New Jersey State Bureau of Securities. The materials requested include documents concerning the Company’s former relationship with Philidor, its accounting treatment for sales to Philidor, its financial reporting and public disclosures and other matters. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation.

Investigation by the State of Texas

On May 27, 2014, the State of Texas served Bausch & Lomb, Inc. (“B&L Inc.”) with a Civil Investigative Demand concerning various price reporting matters relating to the State's Medicaid program and the amounts the State paid in reimbursement for B&L products for the period from 1995 to the date of the Civil Investigative Demand. The Company and B&L Inc. have cooperated fully with the State's investigation and have produced all of the documents requested by the State. In April 2016, the State sent B&L Inc. a demand letter claiming damages in the amount of $20 million. The Company and B&L Inc. are currently evaluating this demand letter, and at this time are unable to estimate what liability, if any, they may have with respect to this matter.

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, an alleged shareholder of Allergan filed a lawsuit on behalf of a putative class of Allergan shareholders 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 contending that various purchases of Allergan securities by AGMS were made while in possession of material, non-public information concerning a potential tender offer by the Company for Allergan stock, and 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, and, on November 9, 2015, the court denied that motion. The Company intends to vigorously defend these matters.

Salix Shareholder Class Actions

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement with Salix, between February 25, 2015 and March 12, 2015, six 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. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss were fully briefed as of February 19, 2016. The Court has scheduled oral argument for May 19, 2016. Salix and the Company are vigorously defending this consolidated matter.

Synergetics Shareholder Class Actions

On September 1, 2015, Valeant entered into a merger agreement, whereby it would acquire all shares of Synergetics USA, Inc. (“Synergetics”). The merger was announced on September 2, 2015. Following the announcement of the merger, four putative stockholder class actions were filed challenging the merger. Three of these actions were filed in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri and name as defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Synergetics, Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Valeant). Those actions are captioned as follows: Murphy, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00778 (filed September 15, 2015 and amended September 23, 2015 (the “Murphy Action”)); Glorioso, et al., v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00803 (filed September 23, 2015 (the “Glorioso Action”)); and Scarantino, et al. v. Synergetics USA Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1511-CC00810 (filed September 28, 2015 (the “Scarantino Action”)) (collectively, the “Missouri Actions”). The fourth action, captioned Nilsen, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, et al., C.A. No. 11552-VCL (the “Delaware Action,” and together with the Missouri Actions, the “Actions”) was filed on September 28, 2015, in the Delaware Court of Chancery and named as defendants all members of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. The Actions generally allege that the members of the Synergetics Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties to Synergetics stockholders by, among other things, conducting a flawed process in considering the transaction, agreeing to an inadequate offer price, providing incomplete and misleading information to Synergetics stockholders, and accepting unreasonable deal protection measures in the merger agreement that allegedly dissuaded other potential bidders from making competing offers. The Actions also allege that Valeant and Blue Subsidiary Corp. aided and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The Missouri Actions sought, among other things, an order enjoining consummation of the merger, rescission of the merger or awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and expenses. The Delaware Action sought, among other things, an order awarding damages to members of the class, and an award of fees and expenses.

On October 2, 2015, Synergetics, each member of the Synergetics Board of Directors, Valeant, and Blue Subsidiary Corp. entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiffs in the Actions, which sets forth the parties’ agreement in principle for a settlement of the Actions on the basis of the additional disclosures made in a supplement to the Schedule 14D-9 filed with the SEC on October 2, 2015. The MOU contemplates that the parties 1) would stipulate to the certification of the consolidated Missouri Actions as a class action, consisting of a mandatory non opt-out class, that includes any and all persons who held Synergetics shares (excluding defendants, and their immediate family members, and any successors in interest thereto) at any time during the period beginning on September 1, 2015, through October 15, 2015 (the date of consummation of the merger), and 2) shall seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement providing for the release of, among other things, certain claims relating to the Actions, the merger and disclosures made in connection therewith, subject to approval of the Circuit Court of St. Charles County in the State of Missouri. On October 8, 2015 the Delaware Court of Chancery unilaterally dismissed the Delaware Action. In October 2015, the Missouri Actions were consolidated into the Murphy Action. In January 2016, the parties engaged in confirmatory discovery, including additional documents produced by Defendants and conducting two depositions.

Thereafter, the parties negotiated and reached agreement on a stipulation of settlement and ancillary settlement documents, which were filed with the Court on April 25, 2016. A hearing with the Court is scheduled for April 29, 2016. The parties continue to negotiate attorneys' fees. Any amounts payable by the Company in this matter is expected to be nominal.

Valeant U.S. Securities Class Action

From October 22, 2015 to October 30, 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. Those four actions, captioned Potter v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7658), Chen v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7679), Yang v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7746), and Fein v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. et al. (Case No. 15-cv-7809), all assert securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Valeant stock during various time periods between February 28, 2014 and October 21, 2015. 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. On December 21, 2015, several plaintiffs filed motions to consolidate the four actions and appoint a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff’s counsel to prosecute all claims. Those motions remain pending. The Company believes the actions are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously.

Canadian Securities Class Actions

In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O’Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015). The Alladina, Kowalyshyn, O’Brien, Catucci and Rousseau-Godbout actions also name, among others, certain current or former directors and officers of the Company. The Rosseau-Godbout action was subsequently stayed by the Quebec Superior Court by consent order.

Each of the five remaining actions alleges violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to, among other things, alleged misrepresentations and/or failures to disclose material information about the Company’s business and prospects, relating to drug pricing, the Company’s policies and accounting practices, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies and, in particular, the Company’s relationship with Philidor. The Alladina, Kowalyshyn and O’Brien actions also assert common law claims for negligent misrepresentation, and the Alladina claim additionally asserts common law negligence, conspiracy, and claims under the British Columbia Business Corporations Act, including the statutory oppression remedies in that legislation. The Catucci action asserts claims under the Quebec Civil Code, alleging the Company breached its duty of care under the civil standard of liability contemplated by the Code.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that have been filed with the applicable court but which not yet been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to those outlined above. The Company has been advised that the plaintiffs in these actions do not intend to pursue the actions.

The Company expects that certain of these actions will be consolidated or stayed prior to proceeding to motions for leave and certification and that no more than one action will proceed in any jurisdiction. In particular, on April 8, 2016, motions were heard by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to determine which of the actions filed in that court will proceed.

The Company believes that it has viable defenses to each of the actions, and in each case 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 Defendants' 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 continues against Medicis and the generic manufacturers as to the remaining claims. The actions are currently in discovery. On March 26, 2015, and on April 6, 2015, while the motion to dismiss the class action complaints was pending, two additional non-class action complaints were filed against Medicis by certain retail pharmacy and grocery chains ("Individual Plaintiffs") 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. Following the Court's August 14, 2015 decision on the motion to dismiss, the Individual Plaintiffs each filed amended complaints on October 1, 2015, and Medicis answered on December 7, 2015. A third non-class action was filed by another retail pharmacy against Medicis on January 26, 2016, and Medicis answered on March 28, 2016. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions.

Contact Lens Antitrust Class Actions

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L, three other contact lens manufacturers, and a contact lens distributor, alleging that the defendants engaged in an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate price competition on certain contact lens lines through the use of unilateral pricing policies. The plaintiffs in such suits alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, 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, punitive and/or other damages, including attorneys’ fees. By order dated June 8, 2015, the JPML centralized the suits in the Middle District of Florida, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK, before U.S. District Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger. After the Class Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action complaint on December 16, 2015, the defendants jointly moved to dismiss those complaints. The defendants’ motion to dismiss is currently pending in the district court, and the actions are currently in discovery. The Company intends to vigorously defend all of these actions.

Intellectual Property

AntiGrippin® Litigation

A suit was 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 plaintiff in this matter alleged that Natur Produkt violated Russian competition law by preventing plaintiff from producing and marketing its products under certain brand names. The 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 appealed to the Supreme Court for review of the IP Court’s decision and, on December 30, 2015, the Supreme Court rejected Natur Produkt’s request for appeal. In January 2016, Natur Produkt requested clarification of this decision of the Supreme Court, but it is not anticipated that this request will result in a modification to or reversal of the Supreme Court’s decision to reject Natur Produkt’s appeal. 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 (loss) income.

Following the decision of the IP Court, AnviLab filed two more claims against Natur Produkt relating to the matter described above (the “Original AnviLab Matter”). The first claim by AnviLab was filed on December 3, 2015 with the Saint Petersburg Arbitration Tribunal (Case No. A-56-89244/2015) and seeks an amount in respect of the interest payable on the amount awarded by the appeal court in the Original AnviLab Matter for the period between the date the amount was awarded by the appeal court (August 4, 2015) and the date AnviLab received the payment (September 29, 2015). A hearing in this matter was held on March 24, 2016 and a subsequent hearing was held on April 14, 2016. The second claim by AnviLab was filed on December 15, 2015 with the Saint Petersburg Arbitration Tribunal (Case No.A-56-23056/2013) and seeks an amount in respect of litigation costs related to Original AnviLab Matter. A hearing in this matter was held on February 25, 2016 and a subsequent hearing was held on April 14, 2016. The Court awarded amounts to AnviLab with respect to each of these claims. For both of these claims, the amount awarded to AnviLab was insignificant. Natur Produkt currently anticipates that it will appeal these decisions.

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 Onexton®, Relistor®, Prolensa®, Apriso®, Uceris®, Moviprep®, Acanya® and Bepreve®, or other similar suits. These matters are proceeding in the ordinary course.

In addition, on or about February 16, 2016, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification dated February 11, 2016, from Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. (“Actavis”), in which Actavis asserted that the following U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s (“Salix Inc.”) Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Actavis’ generic rifaximin tables, 550 mg, for which an ANDA has been filed by Actavis: U.S. Patent No. 8,309,569 (the “‘569 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,642,573 (the “‘573 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,829,017 (the “‘017 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,946,252 (the “‘252 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,969,398 (the “‘398 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,045,620 (the “‘620 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,612,199 (the “‘199 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,902,206 (the “‘206 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,906,542 (the “‘542 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,915,275 (the “‘275 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,158,644 (the “‘644 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,158,781 (the “‘781 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,193,196 (the “‘196 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,518,949 (the “‘949 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,741,904 (the “‘904 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,835,452 (the “‘452 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,853,231 (the “‘231 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 6,861,053 (the “‘053 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,452,857 (the “‘857 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,605,240 (the “‘240 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 7,718,608 (the “‘608 patent”) and U.S. Patent No. 7,935,799 (the “‘799 patent”) (collectively, the “Xifaxan® Patents”). Salix Inc. holds the NDA for Xifaxan® and its affiliate, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Salix Ltd.”), is the owner of the ‘569 patent, the ‘573 patent, the ‘017 patent, the ‘252 patent and the ‘398 patent. Alfa Wassermann S.p.A. (“Alfa Wassermann”) is the owner of the ‘620 patent, the ‘199 patent, the ‘206 patent, the ‘542 patent, the ‘275 patent, the ‘644 patent, the ‘781 patent, the ‘196 patent, the ‘949 patent, the ‘904 patent, the ‘452 patent and the ‘231 patent, each of which has been exclusively licensed to Salix Inc. and its affiliate, Valeant Pharmaceuticals Luxembourg S.à r.l. (“Valeant Luxembourg”) to market Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“Cedars-Sinai”) is the owner of the ‘053 patent, the ‘857 patent, the ‘240 patent, the ‘608 patent and the ‘799 patent , each of which has been exclusively licensed to Salix Inc. and its affiliate, Valeant Luxembourg, to market Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg. On March 23, 2016, Salix Inc. and its affiliates, Salix Ltd. and Valeant Luxembourg, Alfa Wassermann and Cedars-Sinai filed suit against Actavis in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 1:16-cv-00188), pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Actavis of one or more claims of each of the Xifaxan® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Actavis’ ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. The Company believes the allegations raised in Actavis’ notice are without merit and intends to vigorously pursue this suit.

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, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and a decision is pending. The Company denies the allegations being made and is vigorously defending this matter.

R&O Pharmacy Complaint

On October 6, 2015, R&O filed a complaint against Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC (“VPNA”) in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:15-cv-07846). R&O’s lawsuit did not seek damages, but sought a declaration of rights against VPNA that R&O owes no duties or amounts to VPNA with respect to certain Company products ordered by and shipped to R&O. On October 29, 2015, VPNA filed its answer to R&O’s complaint. Also on that date, VPNA filed a counterclaim against R&O, including claims for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, accounting, and an open book account, with respect to these unpaid amounts. VPNA’s counterclaim sought damages in excess of $19 million. On November 19, 2015, R&O filed its answer to VPNA’s counterclaim. R&O did not assert any counterclaims. R&O generally claimed an entitlement to hold the funds achieved from the sale of Company products as an offset to potential claims arising out of Philidor’s conduct, which R&O asserts is attributable to the Company under an alter ego theory (being the theory that the Company should be responsible for Philidor’s actions in disregard of the fact that the two are separate legal entities). The Court held a scheduling conference with the parties on February 8, 2016 and set a November 2016 trial date. Subsequently, on March 8, 2016, the parties reached a confidential settlement that resolved all claims between them and, on March 10, the Court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice. While the terms of the settlement are confidential, the resolution includes a payment by R&O to VPNA for less than the damages sought by VPNA in its counterclaim. VPNA firmly believes it acted appropriately and refutes any suggestion of wrongdoing.

Product Liability Matters

MoistureLoc™ Product Liability Lawsuits

B&L had previously been served or was aware that it had been named as a defendant in approximately 321 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 claimed that they had suffered personal injury as a result of using a contact lens solution with MoistureLoc™. Two 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 were 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™. 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 one active fusarium claim involving a claimant outside of the United States that remains pending. B&L is defending against this one active claim and the Company currently expects that any potential judgment in this matter 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 4 for additional information. Each of the Salix legal proceeding matters set out below was commenced prior to the Company’s acquisition of Salix.

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. Following recent settlement discussions, the Company, the United States and the state Medicaid Fraud Control Unit negotiating team agreed, in principle, to resolve the investigation as to the Company for $54 million, plus payment of applicable interest and reasonable relators’ attorneys’ fees. The settlement has certain material contingencies, including, without limitation, the parties negotiating satisfactory civil settlement documents and final approvals by the United States Department of Justice, the various state attorneys general and the Company. The Company can provide no assurance that the settlement will be finalized, in whole or in part, with the United States and the states. The amount of the agreement-in-principle is within the range expected by the Company at the time of acquisition, is included within the liability recorded at fair value as part of the Salix Acquisition and an adjustment, if any, to this liability will be recorded when and if the settlement is finalized.

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. The Company 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, three 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. Two 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 were fully briefed as of August 3, 2015. The Court denied the Motions to Dismiss in an order dated March 31, 2016 for the reasons stated in an opinion dated April 22, 2016. By stipulation of the parties, Defendants’ Answers to the operative Complaint will be filed on May 31, 2016. 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.

Philidor Matters

As mentioned above in this section, the Company is involved in certain investigations, disputes and other proceedings related to the Company’s now terminated relationship with Philidor. These include the securities putative class action litigation and the investigations by certain offices of the Department of Justice, the SEC, the request for documents and other information received from the AMF and certain Congressional committees and a document subpoena from the New Jersey State Bureau of Securities. There can be no assurances that governmental agencies or other third parties will not commence additional investigations or assert claims relating to the Company’s former relationship with Philidor or Philidor’s business practices, including claims that Philidor or its affiliated pharmacies improperly billed third parties or that that the Company is liable, directly or indirectly, for such practices. The Company is cooperating with all existing governmental investigations related to Philidor and is vigorously defending the putative class action litigation. No assurance can be given regarding the ultimate outcome of any present or future proceedings relating to Philidor.