Legal and Other Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2016
Legal Proceedings [Abstract]
Legal and Other Proceedings	Legal and Other Proceedings The Company expenses legal costs when incurred. The Company recognizes loss contingency provisions for probable losses when management is able to reasonably estimate the loss. When the estimated loss lies within a range, the Company records a loss contingency provision based on its best estimate of the probable loss. If no particular amount within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount is recorded. Estimates of losses may be developed before the ultimate loss is known, and are therefore refined each accounting period as additional information becomes known. An outcome that deviates from the Company’s estimate may result in an additional expense or release in a future accounting period. As of December 31, 2016, provision for litigation losses, insurance claims and other disputes totaled $415.0 million (December 31, 2015: $9.9 million). The Company’s principal pending legal and other proceedings are disclosed below. The outcomes of these proceedings are not always predictable and can be affected by various factors. For those legal and other proceedings for which it is considered at least reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred, the Company discloses the possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded loss contingency provision, if any, where such excess is both material and estimable. VYVANSE In May and June 2011, Shire was notified that six separate Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") were submitted under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market generic versions of all approved strengths of VYVANSE. The notices were from Sandoz, Inc. ("Sandoz"); Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC ("Amneal"); Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Roxane Laboratories, Inc. ("Roxane"); Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”); and Actavis Elizabeth LLC and Actavis Inc. (collectively, "Actavis"). Since filing suit against these ANDA filers, along with API suppliers Johnson Matthey Inc. and Johnson Matthey Pharmaceuticals Materials (collectively, “Johnson Matthey”), Shire has been engaged in a consolidated patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the aforementioned parties (except Watson, who withdrew their ANDA). On June 23, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Shire’s summary judgment motion holding that 18 claims of the patents-in-suit were both infringed and valid. On September 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed that ruling against all of the ANDA filers and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The CAFC ruling overturned the infringement ruling against Johnson Matthey and the case against Johnson Matthey has been dismissed. Following remand to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the case has been fully resolved as a result of the Stipulation of Dismissal and Final Judgment entered by the court on August 30, 2016 in which the court imposed an injunction preventing all of the ANDA filers (Sandoz, Roxane, Amneal, Actavis and Mylan) from launching generic versions of VYVANSE until the expiration of these patents in 2023. In March, April and May 2016, Shire received Notices of Allegation (“NOA”) from Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) informing Shire that Apotex filed an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (“ANDS”) with Health Canada seeking approval to market a generic version of VYVANSE in Canada. Within the requisite 45 days, Shire filed for orders of prohibition and, as a result, a 24-month stay of approval of the ANDS has been put into effect. Apotex has withdrawn the first two NOAs. On July 4, 2016, Apotex filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court seeking a judicial declaration of invalidity and noninfringement of Shire’s Canadian patent relating to VYVANSE which Shire is actively defending. On April 14, 2016, Shire prevailed in upholding its European patent for ELVANSE. Shire initially prevailed in an opposition to its patent lodged by Johnson Matthey plc, Generics [UK] Limited (trading as Mylan) and Hexal AG and on April 14, 2016 Shire prevailed in the appeal. The decision by the appeals board of the European Patent Office is final and cannot be further appealed. LIALDA In May 2010, Shire was notified that Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Zydus”) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus and Cadila Healthcare Limited, doing business as Zydus Cadila. A Markman hearing took place on January 29, 2015 and a Markman ruling was issued on July 28, 2015. A trial took place between March 28, 2016 and April 1, 2016. On September 16, 2016, the court issued its ruling finding that the proposed generic product would not infringe the asserted claims. Shire has appealed the ruling to the CAFC. In February 2012, Shire was notified that Osmotica Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Osmotica”) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Osmotica. A Markman hearing took place on August 22, 2013 and a Markman ruling was issued on September 25, 2014. The court issued an Order on February 27, 2015 in which all dates in the scheduling order have been stayed. In March 2012, Shire was notified that Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”) were subsequently added as defendants. A trial took place in April 2013 and on May 9, 2013 the trial court issued a decision finding that the proposed generic product infringes the patent-in-suit and that the patent is not invalid. Watson appealed the trial court’s ruling to the CAFC and a hearing took place on December 2, 2013. The ruling of the CAFC was issued on March 28, 2014 overruling the trial court on the interpretation of two claim terms and remanding the case for further proceedings. Shire petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted on January 26, 2015. The Supreme Court also vacated the CAFC decision and remanded the case to the CAFC for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva v. Sandoz. On June 3, 2015, the CAFC reaffirmed their previous decision to reverse the District Court’s claims construction and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A trial was held on January 25-27, 2016. A ruling was issued on March 28, 2016 upholding the validity of the patent and finding that Watson’s proposed ANDA product infringes the patent-in-suit. Watson appealed the ruling to the CAFC and oral argument took place on October 5, 2016. The CAFC issued a ruling on February 10, 2017 reversing the trial court’s ruling of infringement and remanding the case to the lower court for entry of a ruling of non-infringement. In April 2012, Shire was notified that Mylan had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Mylan. A Markman hearing took place on December 22, 2014. A Markman ruling was issued on March 23, 2015. Following a four-day bench trial in September 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the court handed down a ruling that Mylan’s proposed generic version of LIALDA infringes claims 1 and 3 of the Orange Book listed patent for LIALDA. In connection with this finding of infringement, the court also entered an injunction prohibiting Mylan from making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing their proposed ANDA product before the expiration of the patent (June 8, 2020) and requiring that the approval date for their ANDA be on or after the expiration of the patent. In March 2015, Shire was notified that Amneal had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Pvt. Ltd. A Markman hearing took place on July 25, 2016. A Markman ruling was issued on August 2, 2016. No trial date has been set. In September 2015, Shire was notified that Lupin Ltd. had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA. A Markman hearing originally scheduled to take place on November 10, 2016, was cancelled and has not yet been rescheduled. No trial date has been set. On October 7, 2015 the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent Office instituted an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent 6,773,720 which is the patent-in-suit in the litigations referred to above. The IPR process is designed to re-assess the patentability of the claims of the patent. A decision from the PTAB was issued on October 5, 2016 upholding the validity of the patent in view of the challenges put forward in the IPR. DERMAGRAFT The Department of Justice, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, DC, is conducting civil and criminal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of Advanced BioHealing Inc. (“ABH”) relating to DERMAGRAFT, which Shire acquired in June 2011. Following the disposal of the DERMAGRAFT business in January 2014, Shire retained certain legacy liabilities including any liability that may arise from this investigation. Over the several years, Shire has been cooperating fully with these investigations and engaged in discussions with the Department of Justice about a resolution. In August 2016, Shire announced that it reached an agreement with the Department of Justice on a proposal for a civil settlement in the amount of $350.0 million plus interest. Shire established a reserve for the expected settlement, $340.0 million in the second quarter of 2016 and an additional $10.0 million in the third quarter of 2016. Shire entered into a final settlement agreement with the Department of Justice, announced in January 2017, in the amount of $350.0 million, plus interest. Shire paid $345.5 million of the settlement amount in January 2017 and anticipates the remaining payment will be made in the second quarter of 2017. The agreement resolves the civil investigations conducted by the Department of Justice, including multiple U.S. Attorney’s Offices and relevant federal and state agencies. The agreement also resolves the federal government’s claims under the federal False Claims Act and the DERMAGRAFT Medicaid-related claims for states that opt into the settlement. Some states with DERMAGRAFT Medicaid-related claims might elect to opt out of the final settlement and those states’ claims would remain unresolved. Under the terms of Shire’s merger agreement with ABH, $37.5 million was held in escrow at the close of the transaction as an indemnity against potential breaches of representations and warranties on the part of ABH. After the civil settlement with the DOJ had been finalized, in January 2017, Shire made a formal demand upon ABH’s former equityholders to return the entire amount held in escrow to Shire. In February 2017, Shire and ABH’s equityholders entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which ABH’s equityholders agreed to release the full $37.5 million escrow to Shire and Shire will release the claims against ABH equityholders upon receipt of the entire amount held in escrow. VANCOCIN On April 6, 2012, ViroPharma Incorporated (“ViroPharma”) received a notification that the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) was conducting an investigation into whether ViroPharma had engaged in unfair methods of competition with respect to VANCOCIN which Shire acquired in January 2014. Following the divestiture of VANCOCIN in August 2014, Shire retained certain liabilities including any potential liabilities related to the VANCOCIN citizen petition. On August 3, 2012, and September 8, 2014, ViroPharma and Shire respectively received Civil Investigative Demands from the FTC requesting additional information related to this matter. Shire fully cooperated with the FTC’s investigation. On February 7, 2017, the FTC filed a Complaint against Shire alleging that ViroPharma engaged in conduct in violation of U.S. antitrust laws arising from a citizen petition ViroPharma filed in 2006 related to Food & Drug Administration’s policy for evaluating bioequivalence for generic versions of VANCOCIN. The complaint seeks equitable relief, including an injunction and disgorgement. At this time, Shire is unable to predict the outcome or duration of this case. ELAPRASE On September 24, 2014, Shire’s Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney’s office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these claims. On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was appealed. On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued the final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed all the claims under the class action. The final decision can be appealed through the Superior Court of Justice or through the Supreme Court; however, the likelihood of one of those courts accepting the appeal is remote.

Legal and Other Proceedings

The Company expenses legal costs when incurred.

The Company recognizes loss contingency provisions for probable losses when management is able to reasonably estimate the loss. When the estimated loss lies within a range, the Company records a loss contingency provision based on its best estimate of the probable loss. If no particular amount within that range is a better estimate than any other amount, the minimum amount is recorded. Estimates of losses may be developed before the ultimate loss is known, and are therefore refined each accounting period as additional information becomes known. An outcome that deviates from the Company’s estimate may result in an additional expense or release in a future accounting period. As of December 31, 2016, provision for litigation losses, insurance claims and other disputes totaled $415.0 million (December 31, 2015: $9.9 million).

The Company’s principal pending legal and other proceedings are disclosed below. The outcomes of these proceedings are not always predictable and can be affected by various factors. For those legal and other proceedings for which it is considered at least reasonably possible that a loss has been incurred, the Company discloses the possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of the recorded loss contingency provision, if any, where such excess is both material and estimable.

VYVANSE

In May and June 2011, Shire was notified that six separate Abbreviated New Drug Applications ("ANDAs") were submitted under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market generic versions of all approved strengths of VYVANSE. The notices were from Sandoz, Inc. ("Sandoz"); Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC ("Amneal"); Watson Laboratories, Inc.; Roxane Laboratories, Inc. ("Roxane"); Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Mylan”); and Actavis Elizabeth LLC and Actavis Inc. (collectively, "Actavis"). Since filing suit against these ANDA filers, along with API suppliers Johnson Matthey Inc. and Johnson Matthey Pharmaceuticals Materials (collectively, “Johnson Matthey”), Shire has been engaged in a consolidated patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the aforementioned parties (except Watson, who withdrew their ANDA).

On June 23, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Shire’s summary judgment motion holding that 18 claims of the patents-in-suit were both infringed and valid. On September 24, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) affirmed that ruling against all of the ANDA filers and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings. The CAFC ruling overturned the infringement ruling against Johnson Matthey and the case against Johnson Matthey has been dismissed. Following remand to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, the case has been fully resolved as a result of the Stipulation of Dismissal and Final Judgment entered by the court on August 30, 2016 in which the court imposed an injunction preventing all of the ANDA filers (Sandoz, Roxane, Amneal, Actavis and Mylan) from launching generic versions of VYVANSE until the expiration of these patents in 2023.

In March, April and May 2016, Shire received Notices of Allegation (“NOA”) from Apotex Inc. (“Apotex”) informing Shire that Apotex filed an Abbreviated New Drug Submission (“ANDS”) with Health Canada seeking approval to market a generic version of VYVANSE in Canada. Within the requisite 45 days, Shire filed for orders of prohibition and, as a result, a 24-month stay of approval of the ANDS has been put into effect. Apotex has withdrawn the first two NOAs. On July 4, 2016, Apotex filed a Statement of Claim in Federal Court seeking a judicial declaration of invalidity and noninfringement of Shire’s Canadian patent relating to VYVANSE which Shire is actively defending.

On April 14, 2016, Shire prevailed in upholding its European patent for ELVANSE. Shire initially prevailed in an opposition to its patent lodged by Johnson Matthey plc, Generics [UK] Limited (trading as Mylan) and Hexal AG and on April 14, 2016 Shire prevailed in the appeal. The decision by the appeals board of the European Patent Office is final and cannot be further appealed.

LIALDA

In May 2010, Shire was notified that Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Zydus”) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus and Cadila Healthcare Limited, doing business as Zydus Cadila. A Markman hearing took place on January 29, 2015 and a Markman ruling was issued on July 28, 2015. A trial took place between March 28, 2016 and April 1, 2016. On September 16, 2016, the court issued its ruling finding that the proposed generic product would not infringe the asserted claims. Shire has appealed the ruling to the CAFC.

In February 2012, Shire was notified that Osmotica Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Osmotica”) had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Osmotica. A Markman hearing took place on August 22, 2013 and a Markman ruling was issued on September 25, 2014. The court issued an Order on February 27, 2015 in which all dates in the scheduling order have been stayed.

In March 2012, Shire was notified that Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Watson”) were subsequently added as defendants. A trial took place in April 2013 and on May 9, 2013 the trial court issued a decision finding that the proposed generic product infringes the patent-in-suit and that the patent is not invalid. Watson appealed the trial court’s ruling to the CAFC and a hearing took place on December 2, 2013. The ruling of the CAFC was issued on March 28, 2014 overruling the trial court on the interpretation of two claim terms and remanding the case for further proceedings. Shire petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari which was granted on January 26, 2015. The Supreme Court also vacated the CAFC decision and remanded the case to the CAFC for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Teva v. Sandoz. On June 3, 2015, the CAFC reaffirmed their previous decision to reverse the District Court’s claims construction and remanded the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. A trial was held on January 25-27, 2016. A ruling was issued on March 28, 2016 upholding the validity of the patent and finding that Watson’s proposed ANDA product infringes the patent-in-suit. Watson appealed the ruling to the CAFC and oral argument took place on October 5, 2016. The CAFC issued a ruling on February 10, 2017 reversing the trial court’s ruling of infringement and remanding the case to the lower court for entry of a ruling of non-infringement.

In April 2012, Shire was notified that Mylan had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45-day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Mylan. A Markman hearing took place on December 22, 2014. A Markman ruling was issued on March 23, 2015. Following a four-day bench trial in September 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the court handed down a ruling that Mylan’s proposed generic version of LIALDA infringes claims 1 and 3 of the Orange Book listed patent for LIALDA. In connection with this finding of infringement, the court also entered an injunction prohibiting Mylan from making, using, selling, offering for sale and/or importing their proposed ANDA product before the expiration of the patent (June 8, 2020) and requiring that the approval date for their ANDA be on or after the expiration of the patent.

In March 2015, Shire was notified that Amneal had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Amneal, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals Co. India Pvt. Ltd. A Markman hearing took place on July 25, 2016. A Markman ruling was issued on August 2, 2016. No trial date has been set.

In September 2015, Shire was notified that Lupin Ltd. had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of LIALDA. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Inc. and Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA. A Markman hearing originally scheduled to take place on November 10, 2016, was cancelled and has not yet been rescheduled. No trial date has been set.

On October 7, 2015 the Patent Trial and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent Office instituted an inter partes review (“IPR”) of U.S. Patent 6,773,720 which is the patent-in-suit in the litigations referred to above. The IPR process is designed to re-assess the patentability of the claims of the patent. A decision from the PTAB was issued on October 5, 2016 upholding the validity of the patent in view of the challenges put forward in the IPR.

DERMAGRAFT

The Department of Justice, including the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, DC, is conducting civil and criminal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of Advanced BioHealing Inc. (“ABH”) relating to DERMAGRAFT, which Shire acquired in June 2011. Following the disposal of the DERMAGRAFT business in January 2014, Shire retained certain legacy liabilities including any liability that may arise from this investigation.

Over the several years, Shire has been cooperating fully with these investigations and engaged in discussions with the Department of Justice about a resolution. In August 2016, Shire announced that it reached an agreement with the Department of Justice on a proposal for a civil settlement in the amount of $350.0 million plus interest. Shire established a reserve for the expected settlement, $340.0 million in the second quarter of 2016 and an additional $10.0 million in the third quarter of 2016.

Shire entered into a final settlement agreement with the Department of Justice, announced in January 2017, in the amount of $350.0 million, plus interest. Shire paid $345.5 million of the settlement amount in January 2017 and anticipates the remaining payment will be made in the second quarter of 2017. The agreement resolves the civil investigations conducted by the Department of Justice, including multiple U.S. Attorney’s Offices and relevant federal and state agencies.

The agreement also resolves the federal government’s claims under the federal False Claims Act and the DERMAGRAFT Medicaid-related claims for states that opt into the settlement. Some states with DERMAGRAFT Medicaid-related claims might elect to opt out of the final settlement and those states’ claims would remain unresolved.

Under the terms of Shire’s merger agreement with ABH, $37.5 million was held in escrow at the close of the transaction as an indemnity against potential breaches of representations and warranties on the part of ABH. After the civil settlement with the DOJ had been finalized, in January 2017, Shire made a formal demand upon ABH’s former equityholders to return the entire amount held in escrow to Shire. In February 2017, Shire and ABH’s equityholders entered into a settlement agreement, pursuant to which ABH’s equityholders agreed to release the full $37.5 million escrow to Shire and Shire will release the claims against ABH equityholders upon receipt of the entire amount held in escrow.

VANCOCIN

On April 6, 2012, ViroPharma Incorporated (“ViroPharma”) received a notification that the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) was conducting an investigation into whether ViroPharma had engaged in unfair methods of competition with respect to VANCOCIN which Shire acquired in January 2014. Following the divestiture of VANCOCIN in August 2014, Shire retained certain liabilities including any potential liabilities related to the VANCOCIN citizen petition.

On August 3, 2012, and September 8, 2014, ViroPharma and Shire respectively received Civil Investigative Demands from the FTC requesting additional information related to this matter. Shire fully cooperated with the FTC’s investigation.

On February 7, 2017, the FTC filed a Complaint against Shire alleging that ViroPharma engaged in conduct in violation of U.S. antitrust laws arising from a citizen petition ViroPharma filed in 2006 related to Food & Drug Administration’s policy for evaluating bioequivalence for generic versions of VANCOCIN. The complaint seeks equitable relief, including an injunction and disgorgement.

At this time, Shire is unable to predict the outcome or duration of this case.

ELAPRASE

On September 24, 2014, Shire’s Brazilian affiliate, Shire Farmaceutica Brasil Ltda, was served with a lawsuit brought by the State of Sao Paulo and in which the Brazilian Public Attorney’s office has intervened alleging that Shire is obligated to provide certain medical care including ELAPRASE for an indefinite period at no cost to patients who participated in ELAPRASE clinical trials in Brazil, and seeking recoupment to the Brazilian government for amounts paid on behalf of these patients to date, and moral damages associated with these claims.

On May 6, 2016, the trial court judge ruled on the case and dismissed all the claims under the class action, which was appealed. On February 20, 2017, the Court of Appeals in Sao Paulo issued the final decision on merit in favor of Shire and dismissed all the claims under the class action. The final decision can be appealed through the Superior Court of Justice or through the Supreme Court; however, the likelihood of one of those courts accepting the appeal is remote.