LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2011

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

18.   LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

• From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, and related private litigation. There are also ordinary course employment-related issues and other types of claims in which the Company routinely becomes involved, but which individually and collectively are not material.

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

  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 cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these proceedings, some of which may involve significant legal fees. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets.

  Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries

  On May 16, 2008, Biovail Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the Company's former subsidiary, entered into a written plea agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office ("USAO") for the District of Massachusetts whereby it agreed to plead guilty to violating the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and pay a fine of $22.2 million.

  In addition, on May 16, 2008, the Company entered into a non-prosecution agreement with the USAO whereby the USAO agreed to decline prosecution of Biovail in exchange for continuing cooperation and a civil settlement agreement and payment of a civil penalty of $2.4 million. A hearing before the U.S. District Court in Boston took place on September 14, 2009 and the plea was approved.

  In addition, as part of the overall settlement, Biovail entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement ("CIA") with the Office of the Inspector General and the Department of Health and Human Services on September 11, 2009. The CIA requires Biovail to have a compliance program in place and to undertake a set of defined corporate integrity obligations for a five-year term. The CIA also includes requirements for an independent review of these obligations. The first of such reviews was completed in January, 2011. Failure to comply with the obligations under the CIA could result in financial penalties.

  Antitrust

  On April 4, 2008, a direct purchaser plaintiff filed a class action antitrust complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts against Biovail, GlaxoSmithKline plc, and SmithKline Beecham Inc. (the latter two of which are referred to here as "GSK") seeking damages and alleging that Biovail and GSK took actions to improperly delay FDA approval for generic forms of Wellbutrin XL®. The direct purchaser plaintiff in the Massachusetts federal court lawsuit voluntarily dismissed its complaint on May 27, 2008, and shortly thereafter re-filed a virtually identical complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In late May and early June 2008, additional direct and indirect purchaser class actions were also filed against Biovail and GSK in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, all making similar allegations. These complaints have now been consolidated, resulting in a lead direct purchaser and a lead indirect purchaser action.

  On September 10, 2008, the Company and GSK filed motions to dismiss both the direct and indirect purchaser actions. Those motions were heard on February 26, 2009. In the direct purchaser case, on March 13, 2009, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motions, dismissing the Sherman Act Section 2 monopolization claim that had been made by the direct purchasers against the Company. The Company and GSK answered the remaining claims in the direct purchaser case on April 16, 2009. On March 26, 2009, before an order issued on the motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The pending motions were therefore denied as moot, and new motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' claims were filed on April 30, 2009. On July 30, 2009, the Court dismissed all indirect purchaser claims except the antitrust claims (limited as to the Company's concerted actions) in California, Nevada, Tennessee and Wisconsin and the consumer protection claims of California and Florida.

  On September 14, 2010, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add claims under Illinois's Antitrust Act and New York's Donnelly Act. The Company and GSK opposed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion. On December 21, 2010, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion for leave to amend, permitting indirect purchasers leave to amend their complaint to assert claims under New York's Donnelly Act but not under Illinois's Antitrust Act.

  Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification. The Company and GSK opposed the motions. The Court held a hearing on direct purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion on April 5, 2011, and on indirect purchaser plaintiffs' class certification motion on April 29, 2011 and May 27, 2011. The Court granted in part and denied in part the direct purchaser plaintiffs' motion on August 11, 2011. The Court certified a class consisting of all persons or entities in the United States and its territories who purchased Wellbutrin XL® directly from any of the defendants at any time during the period of November 14, 2005 through August 31, 2009. Excluded from the class are defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and federal government entities. Further excluded from the class are persons or entities who have not purchased generic versions of Wellbutrin XL® during the class period after the introduction of generic versions of Wellbutrin XL®. Defendants petitioned the Third Circuit for immediate appellate review of this order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f), but the Third Circuit denied the request without comment. The order remains appealable at the conclusion of the district court proceedings.

  The Court granted in part and denied in part the indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion on August 12, 2011. The defendants have moved the district court to reconsider certain aspects of this order, which motion is pending.

  Expert discovery is currently scheduled to end on November 17, 2011. The deadline for filing of motions for summary judgment is currently set for December 16, 2011, with a hearing set on such motions for March 1, 2012.

  The Company believes that each of these complaints lacks merit and that the Company's challenged actions complied with all applicable laws and regulations, including federal and state antitrust laws, FDA regulations, U.S. patent law and the Hatch-Waxman Act.

  Intellectual Property

  On January 18, 2010, a Canadian Federal Court judge presiding over Biovail and Depomed, Inc. ("Depomed") v. Apotex Inc. ("Apotex") et al. issued a decision in a proceeding pursuant to the Patented Medicines (Notice of Compliance) ("PMNOC") Regulations in Canada to determine whether Apotex's allegations that a Depomed patent was invalid and/or not infringed was justified. This proceeding related to a Canadian application filed by Apotex to market a generic version of the 500 mg formulation of Glumetza® (extended release metformin hydrochloride tablets) licensed in Canada by Depomed to Biovail Laboratories International SRL, now known as Valeant International (Barbados) SRL ("VIB"). Pursuant to the decision issued by the Court, Health Canada can authorize Apotex to market in Canada its generic version of the 500mg formulation of Glumetza®. The decision, which was amended on January 20, 2010, found under Canadian law that Apotex's allegation was justified that the Depomed Canadian patent at issue in the matter (No. 2,290,624) (the " '624 Patent") is obvious. The judge found that the evidence presented by the parties was "evenly balanced" as to obviousness. The judge found in favor of Biovail and Depomed as to all other issues related to the '624 Patent under Canadian law. Apotex was authorized by Health Canada on February 4, 2010 to market its generic version of 500 mg Glumetza® in Canada. This decision, however, did not find the patent invalid and did not preclude the filing of a subsequent patent infringement suit against Apotex. Biovail and Depomed commenced action for patent infringement against Apotex in Canadian Federal Court on February 8, 2010. Pleadings have now closed, but no further steps have been taken.

  On or about June 24, 2010, Biovail and VIB received a Notice of Allegation from Mylan Pharmaceuticals ULC ("Mylan") with respect to Bupropion Hydrochloride 150 mg and 300 mg tablets, marketed in Canada by Biovail as Wellbutrin® XL. The patents in issue are Canadian Patent Nos. 2,142,320, 2,168,364 and 2,524,300. Mylan alleges that its generic form of Wellbutrin® XL does not infringe the patents and, alternatively, that the patents are invalid. Following an evaluation of the allegations in the Notice of Allegation, an application for an order prohibiting the Minister from issuing a Notice of Compliance to Mylan was issued in the Federal Court on August 6, 2010, relating to Canadian Patent Nos. 2,524,300 and 2,168,364. Mylan has now withdrawn its allegations of invalidity. The matter is proceeding in the ordinary course. The parties are exchanging evidence and cross-examinations are taking place. The hearing of the application, which will proceed with respect to Canadian Patent No. 2,168,364, is scheduled to commence on March 26, 2012.

  In May 2011, Mylan filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Canada against the Company, VIB and Valeant Canada seeking to impeach Canadian Patent No. 2,524,300. The parties agreed to discontinue this action, without costs, and a notice of discontinuance was filed with the Federal Court of Canada on August 12, 2011.

  On September 12, 2011, Mylan filed a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Canada against the Company, VIB and Valeant Canada seeking to impeach Canadian Patent No. 2,168,364. The matter is proceeding in the ordinary course.

  On or about January 5, 2010, VIB received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification dated January 4, 2010 from Watson Laboratories, Inc. — Florida ("Watson"), related to Watson's ANDA filing for bupropion hydrobromide extended-release tablets, 174 mg and 348 mg, which correspond to the Company's Aplenzin® Extended-release Tablets 174 mg and 348 mg products. Watson asserted that U.S. Patent Nos. 7,241,805, 7,569,610, 7,572,935 and 7,585,897 which are listed in the FDA's Orange Book for Aplenzin® are invalid or not infringed. VIB subsequently received from Watson a second Notice of Paragraph IV Certification for U.S. Patent Nos. 7,645,802 and 7,649,019, which were listed in the FDA's Orange Book after Watson's initial certification. Watson has alleged these patents are invalid or not infringed. VIB filed suit pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act against Watson on February 18, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and on February 19, 2010, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Watson's ANDA. The Delaware action has been dismissed without prejudice and the litigation is proceeding in the Florida Court. VIB received a third Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Watson dated March 5, 2010, seeking to market its products prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,662,407 and 7,671,094. VIB received a fourth Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Watson on April 9, 2010. VIB filed a second Complaint against Watson in Florida Court on the third and fourth Notices on April 16, 2010. The two actions have been consolidated into the first-filed case before the same judge. In the course of discovery the issues have been narrowed and only five of the patents remain in the litigation. Mandatory mediation was completed unsuccessfully on December 17, 2010. The trial in this matter was held in June 2011 and closing arguments were heard in September 2011. A judgment in this matter is anticipated by the end of 2011 or early 2012.

  On or about January 27, 2010, VIB received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Paddock dated January 22, 2010, relating to Paddock's ANDA filing for bupropion hydrobromide extended-release tablets, 174 mg and 522 mg, which correspond to the Company's Aplenzin® Extended-release Tablets 174 mg and 522 mg products. Paddock has certified that the six patents currently listed in the FDA's Orange Book for Aplenzin®, plus an additional unlisted VIB patent relating to bupropion hydrobromide, are invalid and/or not infringed. A complaint was filed on March 9, 2010 against Paddock in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. A parallel suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has been dismissed without prejudice. A second suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 15, 2010 following a second Paragraph IV certification received from Paddock. Both cases, which are now consolidated before the same judge, are proceeding in the ordinary course. Expert discovery is ongoing. A trial in this matter has been scheduled for June 2012.

  On or about August 20, 2010, Biovail and VIB received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. ("Par") dated August 18, 2010, related to Par's ANDA filing for bupropion hydrobromide extended-release tablets, 174 mg and 348 mg, which corresponds to the Company's Aplenzin® Extended-release Tablets, 174 mg and 348 mg products. Par has certified that eight patents currently listed in the Orange Book for Aplenzin® are invalid, unenforceable and or not infringed. A complaint was filed against Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. and Par on September 22, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The case is proceeding in the ordinary course. Discovery has been completed. No trial date has been scheduled in this matter.

  General Civil Actions

  Complaints have been filed by the City of New York, the State of Alabama, the State of Mississippi, the State of Louisiana and a number of counties within the State of New York, claiming that Biovail, and numerous other pharmaceutical companies, made fraudulent misstatements concerning the "average wholesale price" ("AWP") of their prescription drugs, resulting in alleged overpayments by the plaintiffs for pharmaceutical products sold by the companies.

  The City of New York and plaintiffs for all the counties in New York (other than Erie, Oswego and Schenectady) voluntarily dismissed Biovail and certain others of the named defendants on a without prejudice basis. Similarly, the State of Mississippi voluntarily dismissed its claim against Biovail and a number of defendants on a without prejudice basis.

  In the case brought by the State of Alabama, the Company has answered the State's Amended Complaint and discovery is ongoing. On October 16, 2009, the Supreme Court of Alabama issued an opinion reversing judgments in favor of the State in the first three cases that were tried against co-defendant companies. The Alabama Supreme Court also rendered judgment in favor of those defendants, finding that the State's fraud-based theories failed as a matter of law. A trial date has not been set. The court has ordered all parties to this proceeding to mediation which is expected to take place before the end of 2011.

  The cases brought by the New York State counties of Oswego, Schenectady and Erie, each of which was originally brought in New York State court, were removed by defendants to Federal Court on October 11, 2006. Biovail answered the complaint in each case after the removal to Federal Court. The cases were subsequently remanded and, following the remand, the New York State Litigation Coordinating Panel granted the defendants' application to coordinate the three actions for pretrial purposes in Erie County. The Company settled these cases, which have been dismissed with prejudice. The settlement amount payable was not material.

  A Third Amending Petition for Damages and Jury Demand was filed on November 10, 2010 in Louisiana State Court by the State of Louisiana claiming that a former subsidiary of the Company, and numerous other pharmaceutical companies, knowingly inflated the AWP and "wholesale acquisition cost" of their prescription drugs, resulting in alleged overpayments by the State for pharmaceutical products sold by the companies. The State has subsequently filed additional amendments to its Petition, none of which materially affect the claims against the Company. The matter is in preliminary stages and the Company intends to defend against this action.

  On December 15, 2009, Biovail was served with a Seventh Amended Complaint under the False Claims Act in an action captioned United States of America, ex rel. Constance A. Conrad v. Actavis Mid-Atlantic, LLC, et al., United States District Court, District of Massachusetts. This case was originally filed in 2002 and maintained under seal until shortly before Biovail was served. Twenty other companies are named as defendants. In the Seventh Amended Complaint, Conrad alleges that various formulations of Rondec, a product formerly owned by Biovail, were not properly approved by the FDA and therefore not a "Covered Outpatient Drug" within the meaning of the Medicaid Rebate Statute. As such, Conrad alleges that Rondec was not eligible for reimbursement by federal healthcare programs, including Medicaid. Conrad seeks treble damages and civil penalties under the False Claims Act. A briefing schedule for motions to dismiss has been set with a hearing to take place in mid-December 2011. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss.

  Legacy Valeant Litigation

  Valeant is the subject of a Formal Order of Investigation with respect to events and circumstances surrounding trading in its common stock, the public release of data from its first pivotal Phase III trial for taribavirin in March 2006, statements made in connection with the public release of data and matters regarding its stock option grants since January 1, 2000 and its restatement of certain historical financial statements announced in March 2008. In September 2006, Valeant's board of directors established a Special Committee to review its historical stock option practices and related accounting, and informed the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") of these efforts. Valeant has cooperated fully and will continue to cooperate with the SEC in its investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the investigation.

  On or around January 19, 2009, Tolmar, Inc. ("Tolmar") notified Galderma Laboratories, L.P. ("Galderma") and Dow Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc. ("Dow") that it had submitted an ANDA, No. 090-903, with the FDA seeking approval for the commercial manufacture, use and sale of its Metronidazole Topical Gel, 1% (the "Tolmar Product") prior to the expiration of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,881,726 (the " '726 patent") and 7,348,317 (the " '317 patent"). The '726 and '317 patents are owned by Dow and licensed to Galderma. The ANDA contains a Paragraph IV Certification alleging that the claims of the '726 and '317 patents will not be infringed by the manufacture, use, importation, sale or offer for sale of the Tolmar Product. On March 3, 2009, Galderma, Galderma S.A., and Dow filed a complaint against Tolmar for the patent infringement of the '726 and '317 patents, pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. The thirty month stay under the Hatch-Waxman Act expired in July 2011 and Tolmar received final approval for its ANDA. On September 19, 2011, Tolmar, Galderma and Dow reached a settlement agreement under which Tolmar will be able to launch the Tolmar Product on July 1, 2013 or earlier under certain circumstances. Upon approval of the settlement agreement by the court, the case was dismissed on September 26, 2011.