LEGAL PROCEEDINGS	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [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, tax, 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. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of September 30, 2019, the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet includes accrued current loss contingencies of $20 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, 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 SEC Investigation Beginning in November 2015, the Company received from the staff of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the SEC subpoenas for documents, as well as various document, testimony and interview requests, related to its investigation of the Company, including requests concerning the Company's former relationship with Philidor Rx Services, LLC ("Philidor"), its accounting practices and policies, its public disclosures and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. The Company has agreed to a tolling agreement with the SEC regarding certain potential claims. 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. AMF Investigation 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 Company’s ad hoc committee of independent directors (established to review certain allegations regarding the Company’s former relationship with Philidor and related matters), 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. In July 2018, the Company was advised by the AMF that it had issued a formal investigation order against it. The Company cannot predict whether any enforcement action against the Company will result from such investigation. Investigation by the State of Texas On May 27, 2014, the State of Texas served Bausch & Lomb Incorporated ("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 to date. 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. have evaluated the letter and disagree with the allegations and methodologies set forth in the letter. In June 2016, the Company and B&L Inc. responded to the State. In August 2019, the State provided an initial response to the Company’s June 2016 letter. The matter remains pending. The Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of the matter or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of the investigation. Investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts - re Arestin^® In August 2019, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. The materials requested pursuant to the subpoena include documents concerning the sales, marketing, coverage and reimbursement of Arestin^®, including related support services, 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 U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts - re patient assistance and pricing In October 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, and, in June 2016, the Company received a follow-up subpoena. The materials requested, pursuant to the subpoenas and follow-up requests, include documents and witness interviews with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs and contributions to patient assistance organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients taking products sold by the Company, and the Company’s pricing of its 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. Investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York In October 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The materials requested, pursuant to the subpoena and follow-up requests, include documents and witness interviews 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; information provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the Company’s pricing (including discounts and rebates), marketing and distribution of its products; the Company’s compliance program; and employee compensation. 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. Securities and RICO Class Actions and Related Matters U.S. Securities Litigation In October 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. The allegations related 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 May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658. On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company’s equity securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company’s securities in the United States in the Company’s debt and stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising out of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and affiliated entities ("ValueAct"). On October 31, 2018, a third party defendant, ValueAct, filed a motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and ValueAct has filed for interlocutory appeal of this decision. On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246) (“Timber Hill”), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company’s common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016. On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case No. 3:15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on February 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order. In addition to the consolidated putative class action, as previously reported in the Company’s Form 10-K, thirty-three groups of individual investors in the Company’s stock and debt securities have chosen to opt out of the consolidated putative class action and filed securities actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation under state law, based on alleged purchases of Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016. Some plaintiffs additionally assert claims under the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and one plaintiff asserts claims under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action. Motions to dismiss have been filed -and in most cases decided- in many of these individual actions. To date, the Court has dismissed state law claims including New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims in certain cases. On January 7, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-02286) opt-out action, closing the case. On September 10, 2019, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims in the Bahaa Aly v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (“Aly”) (Case No. 3:18-cv-17393) opt-out action. On October 9, 2019, the Aly Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The Company believes the individual complaints and the consolidated putative class action are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Canadian Securities Litigation In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec, as previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, filed on February 20, 2019. The actions generally allege 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 the same matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation description above. The Rosseau-Godbout action was stayed by the Quebec Superior Court by consent order. The Kowalyshyn action has been consolidated with the O’Brien action and that consolidated action is stayed in favor of the Catucci action. In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating Class Proceedings. A timetable for certain pre-trial procedural matters in the action has been set and the notice of certification has been disseminated to class members. Among other things, the timetable established a deadline of June 19, 2018 for class members to exercise their right to opt-out of the class. The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet been served on the Company, as previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, filed on February 20, 2019, 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. In addition to the class proceedings described above, on April 12, 2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This proceeding is captioned BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018 deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised its opt-out rights served the Company with an application in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors of the Company and its auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No. 500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out proceedings. On that same date, California State Teachers’ Retirement System also served the Company with proceedings (Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. A settlement approval hearing has been scheduled for November 11, 2019 in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to hear a motion brought by the plaintiffs in the Catucci action for approval of a settlement between the class and the Company’s auditors. The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. Insurance Coverage Lawsuit On December 7, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit against its insurance companies that issued insurance policies covering claims made against the Company, its subsidiaries, and its directors and officers during two distinct policy periods, (i) 2013-14 and (ii) 2015-16. The lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, et al.; 3:18-CV-00493). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks coverage for (1) the costs of defending and resolving claims brought by former shareholders and debtholders of Allergan, Inc. in In re Allergan, Inc. Proxy Violation Securities Litigation and Timber Hill LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., et al. (under the 2013-2014 coverage period), and (2) costs incurred and to be incurred in connection with the securities class actions and opt-out cases described in this section and certain of the investigations described above (under the 2015-2016 coverage period). RICO Class Actions Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three virtually identical actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third-parties, alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured’s consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 13, 2017. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion to stay and entered an order staying all proceedings in the case and accordingly terminating other pending motions. On April 12, 2019, the court lifted the stay. On July 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 28, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on this motion concluded on October 25, 2019. The Company believes these claims are without merit and intends to defend itself vigorously. Hound Partners Lawsuit On October 19, 2018, Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP, Hound Partners Long Master, LP, and Hound Partners Concentrated Master, LP, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division/Mercer County. This action is captioned Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP et al., v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. (No. MER-L-002185-18). This suit asserts claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The factual allegations made in this complaint are similar to those made in the District of New Jersey Hound Partners action. On March 29, 2019, the Company, certain individual defendants, and Plaintiffs submitted a consent order to stay further proceedings pending the completion of discovery in the federal opt-out case Hound Partners Offshore Funds, LP et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-08705). On October 9, 2019, the Court entered the consent order. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Derivative Lawsuits On September 10, 2019 and September 13, 2019, two alleged stockholders filed derivative lawsuits purportedly on behalf of the Company against former Company board members and executives. The cases are Wessels v. Pearson (Case No. 3:19-cv-17833) and Shabbouei v. Pearson (Case No. 3:19-cv-17987). Plaintiffs in both cases assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment related to among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company’s relationship with Philidor. The claims alleged in these cases are based on the same purported conduct that is at issue in In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, all of which occurred prior to 2017. The Shabbouei complaint also asserts a claim for contribution and indemnification by the Defendants for any liability the Company ultimately faces as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint. The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend itself vigorously. Antitrust Generic Pricing Antitrust Class Action As of June 2018, the Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Oceanside”), Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“Bausch Health US”), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“Bausch Health Americas”) (for the purposes of this subsection, collectively, the “Company”), were added as defendants in putative class action multidistrict antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724). The lawsuit to which the Company was added was filed by direct purchaser plaintiffs and seeks damages under federal antitrust laws, alleging that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. Specific claims against the Company’s subsidiaries relate to generic pricing of the Company’s metronidazole vaginal product as part of an alleged overarching conspiracy among generic drug manufacturers. As of December 2018, three direct purchaser plaintiffs that had opted out of the putative class filed an amended complaint in the MDL that added Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ putative class action complaint. On October 18, 2019, Humana Inc. filed a related complaint against Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas, as well as other defendants, alleging similar claims. Separate complaints by other plaintiffs which had been consolidated in the same multidistrict litigation do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the earlier-filed actions. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied defendants’ joint motion to dismiss claims asserting the existence of an overarching multi-drug conspiracy. The Company’s individual motion to dismiss the earlier-filed actions remains pending. Discovery against the Company’s subsidiaries has commenced. The Company continues to vigorously defend these matters. On July 18, 2019, 87 health plans filed a Praecipe to commence an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation. As of the date hereof, Plaintiffs have not filed a Complaint. Glumetza Antitrust Class Actions In August, September and October 2019, six (6) putative antitrust class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus, Inc. (among other defendants). Four of the cases were filed by direct purchasers and two of the cases were filed by end payer purchasers. The direct purchaser defendants seek damages under federal antitrust laws and the end payer purchasers seek damages under state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws as well as injunctive relief under federal antitrust laws. The lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza^® delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza^® or grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints allege that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza^® and metformin hydrochloride both prior to and after generic entry. The Company and its affiliates named in these cases dispute the claims against them and intend to vigorously defend these matters. Intellectual Property Patent Litigation/Paragraph IV Matters From time to time, the Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain patent infringement proceedings in the United States and Canada, including as arising from claims filed by the Company (or that the Company anticipates filing within the required time periods) in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification (in the United States) and Notices of Allegation (in Canada) received from third-party generic manufacturers respecting their pending applications for generic versions of certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, including Relistor^®, Uceris^®, Xifaxan^® 200mg, Xifaxan^® 550mg, Plenvu^®, Bryhali^®, Prolensa^®and Jublia^®in the United States and Jublia^®in Canada, other similar suits. These matters are proceeding in the ordinary course. In July 2019, the Company announced that the U.S. District Court of New Jersey had upheld the validity of and determined Actavis' infringement of a patent protecting the Company's Relistor^® tablets, expiring in March 2031. In July 2019, the Company also announced that it had agreed to resolve the outstanding intellectual property litigation with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") regarding Apriso^® extended-release capsules 0.375g. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to dismiss all litigation related to Apriso^®, and intellectual property protecting Apriso^®will remain intact and enforceable. In addition, the Company will grant Teva a non-exclusive license effective October 1, 2021to the intellectual property relating to Apriso^®in the United States (provided that Teva will be able to begin marketing prior to such date if another generic version of the product is granted approval and starts selling or distributing such generic prior to October 1, 2021). In September 2019, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”), in which Sandoz 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 Sandoz’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) has been filed by Sandoz: U.S. Patent No. 8,309,569 (the “‘569 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”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,271,968 (the “’968 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 and Alfa Sigma S.p.A. (“Alfa Sigma”) 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, the ‘231 patent, and the ‘968 patent, each of which has been exclusively licensed to Salix Inc. and its affiliate, Bausch Health Ireland Limited (“BIRL”) to market Xifaxan^® tablets, 550 mg. On September 30, 2019, Salix Inc. and its affiliates, Salix Ltd. and BIRL, and Alfa Sigma (the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 19-18566) pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Sandoz of one or more claims of each of the Xifaxan^® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Sandoz’s ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. Xifaxan^® is protected by 23 patents covering the composition of matter and the use of Xifaxan^® listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. The claim is substantially similar to the claim brought by Actavis in February 2016 that was settled in September 2018. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Xifaxan^® patents and will continue to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property. In addition, patents covering the Company's branded pharmaceutical products may be challenged in proceedings other than court proceedings, including inter partes review ("IPR") at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The proceedings operate under different standards from district court proceedings, and are often completed within 18 months of institution. IPR challenges have been brought against patents covering the Company's branded pharmaceutical products. For example, following Acrux DDS’s IPR petition, the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board, in May 2017, instituted inter partes review for an Orange Book-listed patent covering Jublia^®and, on June 6, 2018, issued a written determination invalidating such patent. An appeal of this decision was filed on August 7, 2018. Jublia^®continues to be covered by eight other Orange Book-listed patents owned by the Company, which expire in the years 2028 through 2034. Product Liability Shower to Shower^® Products Liability Litigation Since 2016, the Company has been named in one hundred and sixty-five (165) product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower^® body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, only twelve (12) of such product liability suits currently remain pending, and these twelve (12) matters are subject to the Johnson & Johnson indemnification referenced below. Potential liability (including its attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of the covered Shower to Shower^® lawsuits filed against the Company is subject to certain indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. The Company and Johnson & Johnson reached an agreement on April 17, 2019, regarding the scope of the indemnification relating to the majority of the Shower to Shower^® matters (the “Covered Matters”) and the Company has dismissed the demand for arbitration that the Company filed against Johnson & Johnson to assert its rights to indemnification. Johnson & Johnson will fully indemnify the Company in the Covered Matters, which include (i) personal injury and products liability actions arising from alleged exposure to Shower to Shower^® prior to March 2020 and (ii) consumer fraud, consumer protection, false advertising or other regulatory actions arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Shower to Shower^® up to and including September 9, 2012. The Company does not believe that the Covered Matters will have a material impact on the Company’s financial results going forward. The various lawsuits include three cases originally filed in the In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation, Multidistrict Litigation 2738, pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and one case that was filed in the District of Puerto Rico and subsequently transferred to the MDL. The Company and Bausch Health US were first named in a lawsuit filed directly into the MDL alleging that the use of the Shower to Shower^® product caused the plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer. The plaintiff agreed to a dismissal of all claims against the Company and Bausch Health US without prejudice. The Company has subsequently been named in one additional lawsuit, originally filed in the District of Puerto Rico and subsequently transferred into the MDL, but has not been served in that case. The Company was also named in two additional lawsuits filed directly into the MDL that have also not yet been served. These lawsuits also include a number of matters filed in the Superior Court of Delaware and six cases filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that the use of Shower to Shower^® caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer. The Company has been voluntarily dismissed from nearly all of these cases, with claims against Bausch Health US only remaining in two cases pending in New Jersey and one case pending in Delaware. Four of the six cases in the Superior Court of New Jersey were voluntarily dismissed as to Bausch Health US as well. The allegations in the remaining three cases specifically directed to Bausch Health US include failure to warn, design defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, and punitive damages. One hundred twenty-two (122) of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to stipulation in January 2019, and although the stipulation permitted the cases to be filed again within 60 days, none of the cases have been refiled. In addition, these lawsuits also include a number of cases filed in certain state courts in the United States (including the Superior Courts of California, Delaware and New Jersey); the District Court of Louisiana; the Supreme Court of New York (Niagara County); the District Court of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas (Richland County); and the District Court of Nueces County, Texas (transferred to the asbestos MDL docket in the District Court of Harris County, Texas for pre-trial purposes) alleging use of Shower to Shower^® and other products resulted in the plaintiffs developing mesothelioma. The Company has been successful in obtaining voluntarily dismissals in most of these cases or the plaintiffs have not opposed summary judgment. Presently, four cases remain pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The allegations in these cases generally include design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, and punitive damages, and in some cases breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. The damages sought by the various Plaintiffs include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, and loss of consortium. In addition, Plaintiffs seek compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec). The Company also acquired the rights to the Shower to Shower^® product in Canada from Johnson & Johnson in September 2012. In the British Columbia matter, the plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in British Columbia and Canada who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower^®, including their estates, executors and personal representatives, and is alleging that the use of this product increases certain health risks. In the Quebec matter, the plaintiff sought to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Quebec who have used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower^®, as well as their family members, assigns and heirs, and is alleging negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner. A certification (also known as authorization) hearing was held in the Quebec matter and the Court certified (or as stated under Quebec law, authorized) the bringing of a class action by a representative plaintiff on behalf of people in Quebec who have used Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and/or Shower to Shower^® in their perineal area and have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and/or family members, assigns and heirs. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously in each of the remaining actions that are not voluntarily dismissed or subject to a grant of summary judgment. General Civil Actions California Proposition 65 Related Matters On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General’s office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower^® that they allege contained talc contaminated with asbestos, a listed carcinogen. That notice letter was served on the Company on February 22, 2019. By statute, a private lawsuit may not be filed until at least 60 days have passed following service of this pre-suit notice letter. In April 2019, rather than filing a lawsuit against Bausch Health US, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint in a pending Proposition 65 lawsuit (Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., case 2:18-cv-04830-GW-KS) against Johnson & Johnson in federal court in California to add Bausch Health US as a defendant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. The court has ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice. On April 15, 2019, a plaintiff filed a pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General’s office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of Proposition 65 by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower^® that they allege contained silica, arsenic, lead and chromium (hexavalent compounds), which they allege are known to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity. That notice letter was served on the Company on April 18, 2019. While the statutory 60 days have passed before a private lawsuit may be filed, no lawsuit has been filed to date. On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US on June 28, 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Doctors Allergy Formula Lawsuit In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against Bausch Health Americas in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 651597/2018. Doctors Allergy asserts breach of contract and related claims under a 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement, which purports to include milestone payments that Doctors Allergy alleges should have been paid by Bausch Health Americas. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. On June 14, 2018, Bausch Health Americas filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in part and a motion to strike. On July 16, 2019 the court granted the Company's motion in part and dismissed Doctor's Allergy's fraud and punitive damages claims. On August 28, 2019, the Company filed an Amended Answer and asserted Counterclaims against Doctors Allergy alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contract. Discovery is proceeding. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and intends to vigorously defend against those claims and enforce its rights as asserted in its Counterclaims. Litigation with Former Salix CEO On January 28, 2019, former Salix Ltd. CEO and director Carolyn Logan filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 2019-0059, asserting claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The lawsuit arises out of the contractual termination of approximately $30 million in unvested equity awards following the determination by the Salix Ltd. Board of Directors that Logan intentionally engaged in wrongdoing that resulted, or would reasonably be expected to result, in material harm to Salix Ltd., or to the business or reputation of Salix Ltd. Logan seeks the restoration of the unvested equity awards and a declaration regarding certain rights related to indemnification. On June 19, 2019, the Court entered an order staying the claim for declaratory relief pending the final resolution of the breach of contract claim. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend the matter. Completed or Inactive Matters The following matters have concluded, have settled, are the subject of an agreement to settle or have otherwise been closed since January 1, 2019, have been inactive from the Company’s perspective for several quarters or the Company anticipates that no further material activity will take place with respect thereto. Due to the closure, settlement, inactivity or change in status of the matters referenced below, these matters will no longer appear in the Company's next public reports and disclosures, unless required. With respect to inactive matters, to the extent material activity takes place in subsequent quarters with respect thereto, the Company will provide updates as required or as deemed appropriate. 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 Inc., 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, and alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. These cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of Florida by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK. On August 19, 2019, B&L Inc. entered into a settlement, subject to Court approval, by which it agreed to pay $10 million to fully and finally resolve plaintiffs’ class claims in the case. On October 8, 2019, the settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court. Trial against the remaining defendants is scheduled for February 3, 2020. Mississippi Attorney General Consumer Protection Action The Company and Bausch Health US were named in an action brought by James Hood, Attorney General of Mississippi, in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi (Hood ex rel. State of Mississippi, Civil Action No. G2014-1207013, filed on August 22, 2014), alleging consumer protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., the Company and Bausch Health US related to the Shower to Shower^® body powder product and its alleged causal link to ovarian cancer. As indicated above, the Company acquired the Shower to Shower^® body powder product in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson. The State sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring warnings for talc-containing products, removal from the market of products that fail to warn, and to prevent the continued violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”). The State also sought disgorgement of profits from the sale of the product and civil penalties. The State did not make specific allegations as to the Company or Bausch Health US. The Company and Bausch Health US have agreed to resolve this litigation pursuant to a settlement agreement with the State of Mississippi for a non-material amount. At this time, an order of dismissal has not yet been entered by the Court.

From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, tax, 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.

On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of September 30, 2019, the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet includes accrued current loss contingencies of $20 million related to matters which are both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, 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.

Beginning in November 2015, the Company received from the staff of the Los Angeles Regional Office of the SEC subpoenas for documents, as well as various document, testimony and interview requests, related to its investigation of the Company, including requests concerning the Company's former relationship with Philidor Rx Services, LLC ("Philidor"), its accounting practices and policies, its public disclosures and other matters. The Company is cooperating with the SEC in this matter. The

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 Company’s ad hoc committee of independent directors (established to review certain allegations regarding the Company’s former relationship with Philidor and related matters), 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. In July 2018, the Company was advised by the AMF that it had issued a formal investigation order against it. The Company cannot predict whether any enforcement action against the Company will result from such investigation.

On May 27, 2014, the State of Texas served Bausch & Lomb Incorporated ("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 to date. 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. have evaluated the letter and disagree with the allegations and methodologies set forth in the letter. In June 2016, the Company and B&L Inc. responded to the State. In August 2019, the State provided an initial response to the Company’s June 2016 letter. The matter remains pending. The Company cannot predict the duration or outcome of the matter or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of the investigation.

In August 2019, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. The materials requested pursuant to the subpoena include documents concerning the sales, marketing, coverage and reimbursement of Arestin^®, including related support services, 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.

In October 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, and, in June 2016, the Company received a follow-up subpoena. The materials requested, pursuant to the subpoenas and follow-up requests, include documents and witness interviews with respect to the Company’s patient assistance programs and contributions to patient assistance organizations that provide financial assistance to Medicare patients taking products sold by the Company, and the Company’s pricing of its 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.

In October 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. The materials requested, pursuant to the subpoena and follow-up requests, include documents and witness interviews 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; information provided to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services; the Company’s pricing (including discounts and rebates), marketing and distribution of its products; the Company’s compliance program; and employee compensation. 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.

In October 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. The allegations related 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 May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the four actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 3:15-cv-07658. On June 24, 2016, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint asserting claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company, and certain current or former officers and directors, as well as claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors, and certain other parties. The lead plaintiff seeks to bring these claims on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased the Company’s equity securities and senior notes in the United States between January 4, 2013 and March 15, 2016, including all those who purchased the Company’s securities in the United States in the Company’s debt and stock offerings between July 2013 to March 2015. On September 13, 2016, the Company and the other defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On April 28, 2017, the Court dismissed certain claims arising out of the Company's private placement offerings and otherwise denied the motions to dismiss. On September 20, 2018, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, adding claims against ValueAct Capital Management L.P. and affiliated entities ("ValueAct"). On October 31, 2018, a third party defendant, ValueAct, filed a motion to dismiss. On June 30, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss and ValueAct has filed for interlocutory appeal of this decision.

On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 2:18-cv-10246) (“Timber Hill”), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company’s common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016. On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case No. 3:15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on February 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order.

In addition to the consolidated putative class action, as previously reported in the Company’s Form 10-K, thirty-three groups of individual investors in the Company’s stock and debt securities have chosen to opt out of the consolidated putative class action and filed securities actions pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections 10(b), 18, and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation under state law, based on alleged purchases of Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016. Some plaintiffs additionally assert claims under the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and one plaintiff asserts claims under the Connecticut Uniform Securities Act. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action. Motions to dismiss have been filed -and in most cases decided- in many of these individual actions. To date, the Court has dismissed state law claims including New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims in certain cases. On January 7, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-02286) opt-out action, closing the case. On September 10, 2019, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims in the Bahaa Aly v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (“Aly”) (Case No. 3:18-cv-17393) opt-out action. On October 9, 2019, the Aly Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

The actions generally allege 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 the same matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation description above.

The Rosseau-Godbout action was stayed by the Quebec Superior Court by consent order. The Kowalyshyn action has been consolidated with the O’Brien action and that consolidated action is stayed in favor of the Catucci action. In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating Class Proceedings. A timetable for certain pre-trial procedural matters in the action has been set and the notice of certification has been disseminated to class members. Among other things, the timetable established a deadline of June 19, 2018 for class members to exercise their right to opt-out of the class.

The Company is aware of two additional putative class actions that have been filed with the applicable court but which have not yet been served on the Company, as previously reported in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2018, filed on February 20, 2019, 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.

In addition to the class proceedings described above, on April 12, 2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This proceeding is captioned BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations.

The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018 deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised its opt-out rights served the Company with an application in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors of the Company and its auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No. 500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out proceedings. On that same date, California State Teachers’ Retirement System also served the Company with proceedings (Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations.

On December 7, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit against its insurance companies that issued insurance policies covering claims made against the Company, its subsidiaries, and its directors and officers during two distinct policy periods, (i) 2013-14 and (ii) 2015-16. The lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, et al.; 3:18-CV-00493). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks coverage for (1) the costs of defending and resolving claims brought by former shareholders and debtholders of Allergan, Inc. in In re Allergan, Inc. Proxy Violation Securities Litigation and Timber Hill LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., et al. (under the 2013-2014 coverage period), and (2) costs incurred and to be incurred in connection with the securities class actions and opt-out cases described in this section and certain of the investigations described above (under the 2015-2016 coverage period).

Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Company branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. On November 30, 2016, the Court entered an order consolidating the three actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Third-Party Payor Litigation, No. 3:16-cv-03087. A consolidated class action complaint was filed on December 14, 2016. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured’s consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on February 13, 2017. On March 14, 2017, other defendants filed a motion to stay the RICO class action pending the resolution of criminal proceedings against Andrew Davenport and Gary Tanner. On August 9, 2017, the Court granted the motion to stay and entered an order staying all proceedings in the case and accordingly terminating other pending motions. On April 12, 2019, the court lifted the stay. On July 30, 2019, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On August 28, 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Briefing on this motion concluded on October 25, 2019.

On October 19, 2018, Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP, Hound Partners Long Master, LP, and Hound Partners Concentrated Master, LP, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division/Mercer County. This action is captioned Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP et al., v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. (No. MER-L-002185-18). This suit asserts claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The factual allegations made in this complaint are similar to those made in the District of New Jersey Hound Partners action. On March 29, 2019, the Company, certain individual defendants, and Plaintiffs submitted a consent order to stay further proceedings pending the completion of discovery in the federal opt-out case Hound Partners Offshore Funds, LP et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 3:18-cv-08705). On October 9, 2019, the Court entered the consent order. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend this matter.

On September 10, 2019 and September 13, 2019, two alleged stockholders filed derivative lawsuits purportedly on behalf of the Company against former Company board members and executives. The cases are Wessels v. Pearson (Case No. 3:19-cv-17833) and Shabbouei v. Pearson (Case No. 3:19-cv-17987). Plaintiffs in both cases assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment related to among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company’s relationship with Philidor. The claims alleged in these cases are based on the same purported conduct that is at issue in In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, all of which occurred prior to 2017. The Shabbouei complaint also asserts a claim for contribution and indemnification by the Defendants for any liability the Company ultimately faces as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint. The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend itself vigorously.

As of June 2018, the Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Oceanside”), Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“Bausch Health US”), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“Bausch Health Americas”) (for the purposes of this subsection, collectively, the “Company”), were added as defendants in putative class action multidistrict antitrust litigation entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16-MD-2724). The lawsuit to which the Company was added was filed by direct purchaser plaintiffs and seeks damages under federal antitrust laws, alleging that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. Specific claims against the Company’s subsidiaries relate to generic pricing of the Company’s metronidazole vaginal product as part of an

alleged overarching conspiracy among generic drug manufacturers. As of December 2018, three direct purchaser plaintiffs that had opted out of the putative class filed an amended complaint in the MDL that added Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ putative class action complaint. On October 18, 2019, Humana Inc. filed a related complaint against Oceanside, Bausch Health US and Bausch Health Americas, as well as other defendants, alleging similar claims. Separate complaints by other plaintiffs which had been consolidated in the same multidistrict litigation do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. The Company has filed motions to dismiss the earlier-filed actions. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied defendants’ joint motion to dismiss claims asserting the existence of an overarching multi-drug conspiracy. The Company’s individual motion to dismiss the earlier-filed actions remains pending. Discovery against the Company’s subsidiaries has commenced. The Company continues to vigorously defend these matters. On July 18, 2019, 87 health plans filed a Praecipe to commence an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation. As of the date hereof, Plaintiffs have not filed a Complaint.

In August, September and October 2019, six (6) putative antitrust class actions were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus, Inc. (among other defendants). Four of the cases were filed by direct purchasers and two of the cases were filed by end payer purchasers. The direct purchaser defendants seek damages under federal antitrust laws and the end payer purchasers seek damages under state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws as well as injunctive relief under federal antitrust laws. The lawsuits allege that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza^® delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza^® or grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints allege that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza^® and metformin hydrochloride both prior to and after generic entry. The Company and its affiliates named in these cases dispute the claims against them and intend to vigorously defend these matters.

From time to time, the Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain patent infringement proceedings in the United States and Canada, including as arising from claims filed by the Company (or that the Company anticipates filing within the required time periods) in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification (in the United States) and Notices of Allegation (in Canada) received from third-party generic manufacturers respecting their pending applications for generic versions of certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, including Relistor^®, Uceris^®, Xifaxan^® 200mg, Xifaxan^® 550mg, Plenvu^®, Bryhali^®, Prolensa^®and Jublia^®in the United States and Jublia^®in Canada, other similar suits. These matters are proceeding in the ordinary course.

In July 2019, the Company announced that the U.S. District Court of New Jersey had upheld the validity of and determined Actavis' infringement of a patent protecting the Company's Relistor^® tablets, expiring in March 2031. In July 2019, the Company also announced that it had agreed to resolve the outstanding intellectual property litigation with Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") regarding Apriso^® extended-release capsules 0.375g. As part of the settlement, the parties agreed to dismiss all litigation related to Apriso^®, and intellectual property protecting Apriso^®will remain intact and enforceable. In addition, the Company will grant Teva a non-exclusive license effective October 1, 2021to the intellectual property relating to Apriso^®in the United States (provided that Teva will be able to begin marketing prior to such date if another generic version of the product is granted approval and starts selling or distributing such generic prior to October 1, 2021).

In September 2019, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Sandoz, Inc. (“Sandoz”), in which Sandoz 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 Sandoz’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) has been filed by Sandoz: U.S. Patent No. 8,309,569 (the “‘569 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”), and U.S. Patent No. 9,271,968 (the “’968 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 and Alfa Sigma S.p.A. (“Alfa Sigma”) 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, the ‘231 patent, and the ‘968 patent, each of which has been exclusively licensed to Salix Inc. and its affiliate, Bausch Health Ireland Limited (“BIRL”) to market Xifaxan^® tablets, 550 mg. On September 30, 2019, Salix Inc. and its affiliates, Salix Ltd. and BIRL, and Alfa Sigma (the “Plaintiffs”) filed suit against Sandoz in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 19-18566) pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Sandoz of one or more claims of each of the Xifaxan^® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Sandoz’s ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. Xifaxan^® is protected by 23 patents covering the composition of matter and the use of Xifaxan^® listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. The claim is substantially similar to the claim brought by Actavis in February 2016 that was settled in September 2018. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Xifaxan^® patents and will continue to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property.

In addition, patents covering the Company's branded pharmaceutical products may be challenged in proceedings other than court proceedings, including inter partes review ("IPR") at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The proceedings operate under different standards from district court proceedings, and are often completed within 18 months of institution. IPR challenges have been brought against patents covering the Company's branded pharmaceutical products. For example, following Acrux DDS’s IPR petition, the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board, in May 2017, instituted inter partes review for an Orange Book-listed patent covering Jublia^®and, on June 6, 2018, issued a written determination invalidating such patent. An appeal of this decision was filed on August 7, 2018. Jublia^®continues to be covered by eight other Orange Book-listed patents owned by the Company, which expire in the years 2028 through 2034.

Since 2016, the Company has been named in one hundred and sixty-five (165) product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower^® body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, only twelve (12) of such product liability suits currently remain pending, and these twelve (12) matters are subject to the Johnson & Johnson indemnification referenced below.

Potential liability (including its attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of the covered Shower to Shower^® lawsuits filed against the Company is subject to certain indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. The Company and Johnson & Johnson reached an agreement on April 17, 2019, regarding the scope of the indemnification relating to the majority of the Shower to Shower^® matters (the “Covered Matters”) and the Company has dismissed the demand for arbitration that the Company filed against Johnson & Johnson to assert its rights to indemnification. Johnson & Johnson will fully indemnify the Company in the Covered Matters, which include (i) personal injury and products liability actions arising from alleged exposure to Shower to Shower^® prior to March 2020 and (ii) consumer fraud, consumer protection, false advertising or other regulatory actions arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Shower to Shower^® up to and including September 9, 2012. The Company does not believe that the Covered Matters will have a material impact on the Company’s financial results going forward.

The various lawsuits include three cases originally filed in the In re Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Litigation, Multidistrict Litigation 2738, pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, and one case that was filed in the District of Puerto Rico and subsequently transferred to the MDL. The Company and Bausch Health US were first named in a lawsuit filed directly into the MDL alleging that the use of the Shower to Shower^® product caused the plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer. The plaintiff agreed to a dismissal of all claims against the Company and Bausch Health US without prejudice. The Company has subsequently been named in one additional lawsuit, originally filed in the District of Puerto Rico and subsequently transferred into the MDL, but has not been served in that case. The Company was also named in two additional lawsuits filed directly into the MDL that have also not yet been served.

These lawsuits also include a number of matters filed in the Superior Court of Delaware and six cases filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey alleging that the use of Shower to Shower^® caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer. The Company has been voluntarily dismissed from nearly all of these cases, with claims against Bausch Health US only remaining in two cases pending in New Jersey and one case pending in Delaware. Four of the six cases in the Superior Court of New Jersey were voluntarily dismissed as to Bausch Health US as well. The allegations in the remaining three cases specifically directed to Bausch Health US include failure to warn, design defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, and punitive damages. One hundred twenty-two (122) of the Delaware actions were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice pursuant to stipulation in January 2019, and although the stipulation permitted the cases to be filed again within 60 days, none of the cases have been refiled.

In addition, these lawsuits also include a number of cases filed in certain state courts in the United States (including the Superior Courts of California, Delaware and New Jersey); the District Court of Louisiana; the Supreme Court of New York (Niagara County); the District Court of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas (Richland County); and the District Court of Nueces County, Texas (transferred to the asbestos MDL docket in the District Court of Harris County, Texas for pre-trial purposes) alleging use of Shower to Shower^® and other products resulted in the plaintiffs developing mesothelioma. The Company has been successful in obtaining voluntarily dismissals in most of these cases or the plaintiffs have not opposed summary judgment. Presently, four cases remain pending in the Superior Court of New Jersey. The allegations in these cases generally include design defect, manufacturing defect, failure to warn, negligence, and punitive damages, and in some cases breach of express and implied warranties, misrepresentation, and loss of consortium. The damages sought by the various Plaintiffs include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, and loss of consortium. In addition, Plaintiffs seek compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees.

Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec). The Company also acquired the rights to the Shower to Shower^® product in Canada from Johnson & Johnson in September 2012. In the British Columbia matter, the plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in British Columbia and Canada who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower^®, including their estates, executors and personal representatives, and is alleging that the use of this product increases certain health risks. In the Quebec matter, the plaintiff sought to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Quebec who have used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower^®, as well as their family members, assigns and heirs, and is alleging negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner. A certification (also known as authorization) hearing was held in the Quebec matter and the Court certified (or as stated under Quebec law, authorized) the bringing of a class action by a representative plaintiff on behalf of people in Quebec who have used Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder and/or Shower to Shower^® in their perineal area and have been diagnosed with ovarian cancer and/or family members, assigns and heirs. The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages.

On February 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed a pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General’s office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65) by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower^® that they allege contained talc contaminated with asbestos, a listed carcinogen. That notice letter was served on the Company on February 22, 2019. By statute, a private lawsuit may not be filed until at least 60 days have passed following service of this pre-suit notice letter. In April 2019, rather than filing a lawsuit against Bausch Health US, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint in a pending Proposition 65 lawsuit (Luna, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., case 2:18-cv-04830-GW-KS) against Johnson & Johnson in federal court in California to add Bausch Health US as a defendant. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit without prejudice. The court has ordered that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

On April 15, 2019, a plaintiff filed a pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General’s office of their intent to file suit after 60 days against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, alleging they committed violations of Proposition 65 by manufacturing and distributing Shower to Shower^® that they allege contained silica, arsenic, lead and chromium (hexavalent compounds), which they allege are known to cause cancer and/or reproductive toxicity. That notice letter was served on the Company on April 18, 2019. While the statutory 60 days have passed before a private lawsuit may be filed, no lawsuit has been filed to date.

On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California

Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US on June 28, 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against Bausch Health Americas in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 651597/2018. Doctors Allergy asserts breach of contract and related claims under a 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement, which purports to include milestone payments that Doctors Allergy alleges should have been paid by Bausch Health Americas. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. On June 14, 2018, Bausch Health Americas filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in part and a motion to strike. On July 16, 2019 the court granted the Company's motion in part and dismissed Doctor's Allergy's fraud and punitive damages claims. On August 28, 2019, the Company filed an Amended Answer and asserted Counterclaims against Doctors Allergy alleging breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and tortious interference with contract. Discovery is proceeding. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and intends to vigorously defend against those claims and enforce its rights as asserted in its Counterclaims.

On January 28, 2019, former Salix Ltd. CEO and director Carolyn Logan filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 2019-0059, asserting claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. The lawsuit arises out of the contractual termination of approximately $30 million in unvested equity awards following the determination by the Salix Ltd. Board of Directors that Logan intentionally engaged in wrongdoing that resulted, or would reasonably be expected to result, in material harm to Salix Ltd., or to the business or reputation of Salix Ltd. Logan seeks the restoration of the unvested equity awards and a declaration regarding certain rights related to indemnification. On June 19, 2019, the Court entered an order staying the claim for declaratory relief pending the final resolution of the breach of contract claim. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend the matter.

The following matters have concluded, have settled, are the subject of an agreement to settle or have otherwise been closed since January 1, 2019, have been inactive from the Company’s perspective for several quarters or the Company anticipates that no further material activity will take place with respect thereto. Due to the closure, settlement, inactivity or change in status of the matters referenced below, these matters will no longer appear in the Company's next public reports and disclosures, unless required. With respect to inactive matters, to the extent material activity takes place in subsequent quarters with respect thereto, the Company will provide updates as required or as deemed appropriate.

Beginning in March 2015, a number of civil antitrust class action suits were filed by purchasers of contact lenses against B&L Inc., 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, and alleging violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and of various state antitrust and consumer protection laws. These cases have been consolidated in the Middle District of Florida by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, under the caption In re Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:15-md-02626-HES-JRK. On August 19, 2019, B&L Inc. entered into a settlement, subject to Court approval, by which it agreed to pay $10 million to fully and finally resolve plaintiffs’ class claims in the case. On October 8, 2019, the settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the Court. Trial against the remaining defendants is scheduled for February 3, 2020.

The Company and Bausch Health US were named in an action brought by James Hood, Attorney General of Mississippi, in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi (Hood ex rel. State of Mississippi, Civil Action No. G2014-1207013, filed on August 22, 2014), alleging consumer protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., the Company and Bausch Health US related to the Shower to Shower^® body powder product and its alleged causal link to ovarian cancer. As indicated above, the Company acquired the Shower to Shower^® body powder product in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson. The State sought compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring warnings for talc-containing products, removal from the market of products that fail to warn, and

to prevent the continued violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”). The State also sought disgorgement of profits from the sale of the product and civil penalties. The State did not make specific allegations as to the Company or Bausch Health US. The Company and Bausch Health US have agreed to resolve this litigation pursuant to a settlement agreement with the State of Mississippi for a non-material amount. At this time, an order of dismissal has not yet been entered by the Court.