XML 151 R28.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.19.3.a.u2
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
 12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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. Going forward, in the Company's subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, the Company will only include a description of these matters to the extent there has been a material update with respect thereto during the applicable quarter or to the extent otherwise required by law.
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 December 31, 2019, the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets includes accrued current loss contingencies of $1,397 million, inclusive of the settlement of the U.S. Securities Litigation (as discussed below) and related to other matters which the Company believes a potential resolution or settlement is 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, has agreed to a tolling agreement with the SEC regarding certain potential claims and continues to engage in discussions with the SEC regarding resolution of the matter. Although 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, the Company expects that it will likely result in damages, settlement payments, fines, penalties, consent orders or other administrative sanctions against the Company and/or certain of its former legacy directors and officers, any of which could be material. As a result, although no agreement has been reached, the Company has recorded an estimated liability based on these discussions which is included in the Company's accrued current loss contingencies. The final resolution may differ from the Company's current estimate and it could be material to the Company’s results of operations.
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 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 - Opt-Out Litigation
On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658).
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. 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 December 16, 2019, the Company, the current or former officers and directors, ValueAct, and the underwriters announced that they agreed to resolve the securities action for $1,210 million, subject to final court approval. Once approved by the court, the settlement will resolve and discharge all claims against the Company in the class action. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other settling defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. The opt-out litigations related to this matter discussed above remain ongoing. On January 10, 2020, the Company made a payment of $200 million into an escrow fund under the terms of the settlement agreement. On January 27, 2020 the court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled the final settlement approval hearing for May 27, 2020. The balance of the settlement will be paid in accordance with the payment schedule outlined in the settlement agreement. The opt-out litigations discussed below remain ongoing.
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. 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. 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, 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 actions are captioned: T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-5034); Equity Trustees Limited as Responsible Entity for T. Rowe Price Global Equity Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6127); Principal Funds, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6128); BloombergSen Partners Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7212); Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7321); MSD Torchlight Partners, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7324); BlueMountain Foinaven Master Fund, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7328); Incline Global Master LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7494); VALIC Company I v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7496); Janus Aspen Series v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7497) (“Janus Aspen”); Okumus Opportunistic Value Fund, LTD v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6513) (“Okumus”); Lord Abbett Investment Trust- Lord Abbett Short Duration Income Fund, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6365) (“Lord Abbett”); Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund LTD v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. (Case No. 17-cv-7552) ("Pentwater"); Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-7625) (“Mississippi”); The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plans Master Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., et al., (Case No. 17-cv-7636) (“Boeing”); State Board of Administration of Florida v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-12808); The Regents of the University of California v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-13488); GMO Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0089); Första AP Fonden v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-12088); New York City Employees’ Retirement System v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0032) (“NYCERS”); Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-08705) (“Hound Partners”); Blackrock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0343) (“Blackrock”); Colonial First State Investments Limited As Responsible Entity for Commonwealth Global Shares Fund 1 v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0383); Bharat Ahuja v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0846); Brahman Capital Corp. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (Case No. 18-cv-0893); The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-01223) (“Prudential”); Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-02286) ("Senzar"); 2012 Dynasty UC LLC v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-08595) ("2012 Dynasty"); Catalyst Dynamic Alpha Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-12673) (“Catalyst”); Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-15286) (“Northwestern Mutual”); Bahaa Aly, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., (Case No. 18-cv-17393) (“Aly”); Office of the Treasurer as Trustee for the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 19-cv-18473) (“Connecticut”); and Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 19-cv-18475) (“Delaware”).
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. 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. 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. On December 13, 2019, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the Catalyst complaint in its entirety.
The Company disputes the claims against it in the remaining individual opt-out complaints 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. 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 Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions that were filed with the applicable court but which have not 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 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.
Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action in the Quebec Superior Court, has been discontinued. 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.
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 (“CalSTRS”) 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, CalSTRS 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 February 3, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court granted the applications of CalSTRS and BlackRock for leave to pursue their respective actions asserting claims under the Quebec Securities Act.
After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a settlement in the Catucci action between the class members 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: (i) 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 (ii) 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. On January 3, 2020, the parties submitted a letter to the Court requesting consolidation of the two derivative lawsuits. The Company disputes these claims and intends to defend itself vigorously.
Antitrust
Generic Pricing Antitrust Litigation
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”), are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation (“MDL”) 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 lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege 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. The initial lawsuit to which the Company was added as a defendant in June 2018 was filed by a putative class of direct purchaser plaintiffs. In December 2018, certain direct purchaser plaintiffs that had opted out of this putative class filed an amended complaint in the MDL that added the Company, alleging similar claims as the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ putative class action complaint. In February 2019, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the individual claims brought against it and that motion remains pending. In October 2019, an end payer plaintiff that had opted out of the putative end payer class filed a complaint against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging similar claims. In December 2019, end payer opt-out complaints also were filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and in the Northern District of California. In December 2019, separate putative class action complaints were filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by end payer and indirect reseller plaintiffs. In February 2020, a new putative class action complaint was filed against the Company in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania by direct purchaser plaintiffs. The cases have been consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints by other plaintiffs which have been consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. In July 2019, 87 health plans commenced an action in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed and the case has been put in deferred status. The Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend itself vigorously.
Glumetza Antitrust Litigation
Between August and December 2019, six (6) putative antitrust class actions and two (2) non-class complaints were filed in the Northern District of California against the Company, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus, Inc. (among other defendants) (the “California Actions”). One of these class actions has been voluntarily dismissed. Three of the remaining class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers and two of the class actions were filed by end payer purchasers. The purported classes of direct purchasers and end payer purchasers filed consolidated amended complaints on November 25, 2019. The two non-class complaints were filed by direct purchasers. These actions have been consolidated and coordinated in In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA. In February 2020, an additional non-class complaint was filed in the Northern District of California and two (2) additional class actions were filed - one in the Northern District of California and one in the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida Action") (collectively, the "February 2020 Actions"). The February 2020 Actions are brought against the same defendants and allege the same anticompetitive conduct alleged in the California Actions. The Florida Action has been ordered to be transferred to the Northern District of California. Both class and non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs seek damages under federal antitrust laws and the end payer purchasers seek damages under state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment 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 its generic equivalent both prior to and after generic entry. Motions to dismiss the California Actions are fully briefed and set for oral argument on February 20, 2020. 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®, and Jublia® in the United States and Jublia® in Canada, or 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 December 2019, the Company announced that the Company had agreed to resolve the outstanding intellectual property litigation with Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. ("Glenmark") regarding Bryhali®. As part of the agreement the Company grants Glenmark a non-exclusive license effective 2026 to its intellectual property relating to Bryhali® and the parties agreed to dismiss all litigation related to Bryhali® and all intellectual property protecting Bryhali® remains intact.
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 New Drug Application ("NDA") for Xifaxan® and its affiliate, Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (“Salix Ltd.”), is the owner of the ‘569 patent and Alfasigma S.p.A. (“Alfasigma”) 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 Alfasigma (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.
On February 17, 2020, the Company and Alfasigma received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Norwich”), in which Norwich asserted that the following U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Salix Inc. Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Norwich’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which an ANDA has been filed by Norwich: 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. 8,642,573 (the “573 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,741,904 (the “‘904 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,829,017 (the “017 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. 8,946,252 (the “252 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 8,969,398 (the “‘398 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,271,968 (the “’968 Patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,421,195 (the “‘195 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 9,629,828 (the “‘9828 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,314,828 (the “’4828 patent”), U.S. Patent No. 10,335,397 (the “‘397 patent”), and U.S. Patent No. 10,456,384 (the “‘384 patent”) (collectively, the “Xifaxan® Patents”). Salix Inc. holds the NDA for Xifaxan® and is the owner of the ‘569 patent, the ‘573 patent, the ‘017 patent, the ‘252 patent, the ‘398 patent, the ‘195 patent, the ‘9828 patent, the ‘4828 patent, the ‘397 patent, the ‘384 patent. Alfasigma 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/or its affiliate, Bausch Health Ireland Limited (“BIRL”) to market Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg.   Salix Inc. and its affiliates and Alfasigma (the “Plaintiffs”) have forty-five (45) days from the date of receipt of notice to file suit against Norwich pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Norwich of one or more claims of each of the Xifaxan® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Norwich’s ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. The Plaintiffs intend to file suit per the regulations. 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 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.
In accordance with the indemnification agreement, Johnson & Johnson will continue to vigorously defend the Company 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 dismissed the case without prejudice on December 18, 2019.
On April 15, 2019, a plaintiff filed a pre-suit notice letter with the California Attorney General notifying the Attorney General’s office of its 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. On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Jan Graham filed a lawsuit (Graham v. Bausch Health Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 20STCV03578) in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company, Bausch Health US and several other manufacturers, distributors and retailers of talcum powder products, alleging violations of California Proposition 65 by manufacturing and distributing talcum powder products containing chemicals listed under the statue, without a compliant warning on the label. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
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 filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, which is fully briefed. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.
New Mexico Attorney General Consumer Protection Action
The Company and Bausch Health US were named in an action brought by State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, in the County of Santa Fe New Mexico First Judicial District Court (New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. D-101-CV-2020-00013, filed on January 2, 2020), alleging consumer protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., the Company and Bausch Health US related to Shower to Shower® and its alleged causal link to mesothelioma and other cancers. As indicated above,
the Company acquired Shower to Shower® in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson. The State of New Mexico brings claims against all defendants under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, the New Mexico Medicaid Fraud Act, the New Mexico Fraud Against Taxpayers Act, and other common law and equitable causes of action, alleging defendants engaged in wrongful marketing, sale and promotion of talcum powder products. The lawsuit seeks to recover the cost of the talcum powder products as well as the cost of treating asbestos-related cancers allegedly caused by those products. The Company disputes the claims asserted in this lawsuit and intends to vigorously defend the matter.
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. 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.
Canadian Securities Litigation
As described above, the following putative Canadian class actions were discontinued in the fourth quarter of 2019: (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); (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015); (g) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (h) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015).
Settlement of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey Lawsuit
On July 26, 2018, Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey ("Horizon") filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division/Essex County. This action was captioned Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., et. al., (No. ESX-L-005234-18). This suit asserted a claim under the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act, N.J.S.A. 17:33A-1 to -30, as well as claims for common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation. In its complaint, Horizon alleged that the Company and other defendants submitted and caused Horizon to pay fraudulent insurance claims. On October 5, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it. While that motion was pending, plaintiff and the Company entered into a confidential settlement agreement, pursuant to which the Company was dismissed from the action on January 8, 2019.
Afexa Class Action
On March 9, 2012, a Notice of Civil Claim was filed in the Supreme Court of British Columbia which sought an order certifying a proposed class proceeding against the Company and a predecessor, Afexa Life Sciences Inc. ("Afexa") (Case No. NEW-S-S-140954). The proposed claim asserted 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 additional subsequent amendments, while it struck others. The hearing to certify the class was held on April 4-8, 2016 and, on November 16, 2016, the Court issued a decision dismissing the plaintiff’s application for certification of this action as a class proceeding. On December 15, 2016, the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the British Columbia Court of Appeal appealing the decision to dismiss the application for certification. The plaintiff filed its appeal factum on March 15, 2017 and the Company filed its appeal factum on April 19, 2017. The appeal hearing was held on September 19, 2017 and, on April 30, 2018, the British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. On June 29, 2018, the plaintiff filed leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada in this matter and, on February 7, 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the application for leave to appeal with costs.
Settlement of Salix Ltd. SEC Investigation
In the fourth quarter of 2014, the SEC commenced a formal investigation into alleged securities law violations by Salix Ltd. The investigation related to certain disclosures made prior to the Salix Acquisition by Salix Ltd. and its then-chief financial officer relating to the amounts of Salix Ltd. drugs held in inventory by certain wholesaler customers. The Company cooperated with the SEC's investigation. On September 28, 2018, the Company reached a settlement of the relevant charges with the SEC. Under the terms of the settlement, Salix Ltd. neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s allegations. No monetary penalty against the Company or Salix Ltd. was assessed by the terms of the settlement. On April 4, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rendered its final judgment approving the settlement.
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 against B&L Inc. in the case. On October 8, 2019, the settlement agreement was preliminarily approved by the court. A final fairness hearing regarding the settlement has been scheduled for February 25, 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 agreed to resolve this litigation pursuant to a settlement agreement with the State of Mississippi for a non-material amount. On January 8, 2020, an order of dismissal with prejudice was entered by the Court.
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.  B&L Inc. has
cooperated fully with the State's investigation and produced all the documents requested by the State to date.  After an exchange of positions, B&L Inc. and the State have agreed in principle to settle the matter for $10 million, subject to finalization of a definitive agreement.
Letter from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
The Company has received a letter dated September 10, 2015 from the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania stating that they are investigating potential violations of the False Claims Act arising out of Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Biovail Pharmaceuticals") treatment of certain service fees under 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 and clarifying information in response to the government’s request and has cooperated with the government’s investigation; although, during 2019, there has been no material activity on the part of the Company with respect to this matter nor has the Company had contact from the government with respect to this matter. 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 these investigations. The underlying qui tam complaint asserting claims under the federal and certain state False Claims Acts has been voluntarily dismissed, on a without prejudice basis, as it relates to Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and two of the other defendants.
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 has cooperated with this investigation; although, during 2019, there has been no material activity on the part of the Company with respect to this matter nor has the Company had contact from the State with respect to this matter. 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.
California Department of Insurance Investigation
On May 4, 2016, B&L International, Inc. (“B&L International”) received from the Office of the California Insurance Commissioner an administrative subpoena to produce books, records and documents. On September 1, 2016, a revised and corrected subpoena, issued to B&L Inc., was received naming that entity in place of B&L International and seeking additional books records and documents. The requested books, records and documents are being requested in connection with an investigation by the California Department of Insurance and relate to, among other things, consulting agreements and financial arrangements between Bausch & Lomb Holdings Incorporated and its subsidiaries (“B&L”) and health care professionals in California, the provision of ocular equipment, including the Victus® femtosecond laser platform, by B&L to health care professionals in California and prescribing data for prescriptions written by health care professionals in California for certain of B&L’s products, including the Crystalens®, Lotemax®, Besivance® and Prolensa®. B&L Inc. and the Company have cooperated with the investigation, although, during 2019, there has been no material activity on the part of either B&L Inc. or the Company with respect to this matter nor has B&L Inc. nor the Company had contact from the California Department of Insurance with respect to this matter. 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.