Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2012

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure

11.       Commitments and contingencies

(a)       Leases

Future minimum lease payments under operating leases at September 30, 2012 are presented below:

	Operating
	leases
	$’M
	_____________
2012	10.3
2013	39.0
2014	33.1
2015	27.5
2016	20.5
2017	17.0
Thereafter	96.2
	_____________
	243.6
	_____________

The Company leases land, facilities, motor vehicles and certain equipment under operating leases expiring through 2032. Lease and rental expense amounted to $31.4 million and$27.3 million for the nine months to September 30, 2012 and2011respectively, which is predominately included in SG&Aexpenses in the Company's consolidated income statement.

(b)       Letters of credit and guarantees

At September 30, 2012 the Company had irrevocable standby letters of credit and guarantees with various banks and insurance companiestotaling $39.3million, providing security for the Company's performance of various obligations. These obligations are primarily in respect of the recoverability of insurance claims, lease obligations and supply commitments.

(c)       Collaborative arrangements

Details of significant updates in collaborative arrangements in the nine months to September 30, 2012are included below:

In-licensing arrangements

Collaboration and license agreement with Sangamo

On February 1, 2012 Shire and Sangamo announced that they had entered into a collaboration and license agreement to develop therapeutics for hemophilia and other monogenic diseases based on Sangamo's zinc finger DNA-binding protein (“ZFP”) technology. Sangamo is responsible for all activities through submission of Investigational New Drug Applications and European Clinical Trial Applications for each product and Shire will reimburse Sangamo for its internal and external research program-related costs. Shire is responsible for clinical development and commercialization of products arising from the collaboration. Shire paid Sangamo an up-front fee of $13.0 million in the nine months to September 30, 2012 (2011: $nil) and may be required to pay research, regulatory, development and commercial milestone payments, and royalties on product sales.

Out-licensing arrangements

Shire has entered into various collaborative arrangements under which the Company has out-licensed certain product or intellectual property rights for consideration such as up-front payments, development milestones, sales milestones and/or royalty payments. In some of these arrangements Shire and the licensee are both actively involved in the development and commercialization of the licensed product and have exposure to risks and rewards dependent on its commercial success. Under the terms of these arrangements, the Company may receive development milestone payments up to an aggregate amount of $39.0 million and sales milestones up to an aggregate amount of $79.0 million. The receipt of these substantive milestones is uncertain and contingent on the achievement of certain development milestones or the achievement of a specified level of annual net sales by the licensee. In the nine months to September 30, 2012 Shire received up-front and milestone payments totaling $6.0 million (2011: $6.8 million). In the nine monthsto September 30, 2012 Shire recognized milestone income of $6.7million (2011: $10.1 million) in other revenues and $57.6 million (2011: $46.2 million) in product sales for shipment of product to the relevant licensee.

Co-promotion agreements - VYVANSE

Shire terminated its co-promotion agreement for VYVANSE with GSK in 2010. Following Shire's termination, GSK filed a lawsuit against Shire in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas relating to the co-promotion agreement. On June 29, 2012 Shire and GSK settled this dispute. The terms of the settlement are confidential.

(d)       Commitments

(i)       Clinical testing

At September 30, 2012 the Company had committed to pay approximately $419.3 million (December 31, 2011: $358.6 million) to contract vendors for administering and executing clinical trials. The timing of these payments is dependent upon actual services performed by the organizations as determined by patient enrollment levels and related activities.

(ii)       Contract manufacturing

At September 30, 2012 the Company had committed to pay approximately $104.8 million (December 31, 2011: $86.4 million) in respect of contract manufacturing. The Company expects to pay $60.2 million of these commitments in 2012.

(iii)       Other purchasing commitments

At September 30, 2012 the Company had committed to pay approximately $130.0 million (December 31, 2011: $190.1 million) for future purchases of goods and services, predominantly relating to active pharmaceutical ingredients sourcing. The Company expects to pay $115.9 million of these commitments in 2012.

(iv)       Investment commitments

At September 30, 2012 the Company had outstanding commitments to subscribe for interests in companies and partnerships for amounts totaling $17.9 million (December 31, 2011: $9.4 million) which may all be payable in 2012, depending on the timing of capital calls.

(v)       Capital commitments

At September 30, 2012 the Company had committed to spend $24.6 million (December 31, 2011: $25.4 million) on capital projects.

(e)       Legal and other proceedings

The Company expenses legal costs as they are 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 are often developed substantially before the ultimate loss is known, and are therefore refined each accounting period as additional information becomes known. In instances where the Company is unable to develop a reasonable estimate of loss, no loss contingency provision is recorded at that time. As information becomes known a loss contingency provision is recorded when a reasonable estimate can be made. The estimates are reviewed quarterly and the estimates are changed when expectations are revised. An outcome that deviates from the Company's estimate may result in an additional expense or release in a future accounting period. At September 30, 2012 provisions for litigation losses, insurance claims and other disputes totaled $63.8 million (December 31, 2011: $36.9 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.; and Actavis Elizabeth LLC and Actavis Inc. (collectively, "Actavis"). Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed lawsuits for infringement of certain of Shire's VYVANSE patents in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey against each of Sandoz, Roxane, Amneal and Actavis; in the US District Court for the Central District of California against Watson Laboratories, Inc.; and in the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Mylan Inc. (collectively "Mylan"). On December 9, 2011, the District Court of New Jersey consolidated the Sandoz, Roxane, Amneal and Actavis cases. On January 5, 2012, the Watson case was transferred to the District Court of New Jersey, but not consolidated with the other cases. The filing of the lawsuits triggered a stay of approval of all six ANDAs for up to 30 months from the expiration of the new chemical entity exclusivity, which will expire on August 23, 2014. In December 2011 and February 2012, Shire received additional notifications that Mylan had filed further certifications challenging other VYVANSE patents listed in the Orange Book. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a new lawsuit against Mylan, Johnson Matthey Pharmaceutical Materials and Johnson Matthey Inc. in New Jersey. In May 2012, the Mylan case that was filed in the Eastern District of New York was transferred and consolidated with the Sandoz, Roxane, Amneal and Actavis cases in New Jersey. No trial dates have been set.

INTUNIV

In March and April 2010, Shire was notified that three separate ANDAs were submitted under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market generic versions of all approved strengths of INTUNIV. The notices were from Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (collectively, “Teva”);Actavis; and Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Anchen, Inc. (collectively, "Anchen"). Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed lawsuits in the US District Court for the District of Delaware against each of Teva, Actavis and Anchen for infringement of certain of Shire's INTUNIV patents. The filing of the lawsuits triggered a stay of approval of these ANDAs for up to 30 months. These lawsuits have been consolidated. A Markman hearing was held on February 14, 2012, and a written Markman decision was given by the court on March 22, 2012. The Anchen lawsuit was settled in September 2012.This settlement provides TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“TWi”), the acquirer of Anchen's ANDA, with a license to make, and Anchen a license to market, TWi's generic versions of INTUNIV in the United States on July 1, 2016, or earlier in certain circumstances.  Such sales will require the payment of a royalty to Shire, except in certain circumstances.  Also as part of the settlement, under certain circumstances Shire may authorize Anchen to sell authorized generic versions of INTUNIV supplied by Shire, on which Shire will receive a significant royalty.  A bench trial against Actavis and Teva was held from September 17, 2012 through September 20, 2012and post trial briefing is scheduled to conclude on November 8, 2012. A decision has not yet been given.

In October 2010, Shire was notified that two separate ANDAs were submitted under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market generic versions of the 4mg strength of INTUNIV. The notices were from Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and from Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”). Shire was subsequently advised that Impax amended its ANDA to include the 1mg, 2mg and 3mg strengths of INTUNIV. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of California against each of Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida, Watson Pharma, Inc., ANDA, Inc. (collectively “Watson”) and Impax for infringement of certain of Shire's INTUNIV patents. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of these ANDAs for up to 30 months. A Markman hearing was held on May 30, 2012, and a written Markman decision was given by the court on June 1, 2012. A trial is scheduled to begin on July 8, 2013.

In February 2011, Shire was notified that Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of the 4mg strength of INTUNIV. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against Mylan for infringement of certain of Shire's INTUNIV patents. In April 2011, Shire filed a lawsuit against Mylan in the US District Court for the District of West Virginia for infringement of certain of Shire's INTUNIV patents and dismissed the lawsuit in the Southern District of New York. The filing of the lawsuit in West Virginia did not trigger a stay of approval of this ANDA. Shire was subsequently advised that Mylan amended its ANDA to include the 1mg, 2mg and 3mg strengths of INTUNIV. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed another lawsuit against Mylan in the US District Court for the District of West Virginia. A Markman hearing was held on September 6, 2012, although a written decision has not yet been given. A trial is scheduled to start on December 2, 2013.

In March 2011, Shire was notified that Sandoz had submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of the 4mg strength of INTUNIV. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the District of Colorado against Sandoz for infringement of certain of Shire's INTUNIV patents. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of this ANDA for up to 30 months. Shire was subsequently advised that Sandoz amended its ANDA to include the 1mg, 2mg and 3mg strengths of INTUNIV. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed another lawsuit against Sandoz in the US District Court for the District of Colorado. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of the 1mg, 2mg and 3mg strengths for up to 30 months. A Markman hearing was held on August 10, 2012, although a written decision has not yet been given. No trial date has been set.

On March 22, 2012, US Patent No. 5,854,290, one of the patents-in-suit in all the INTUNIV litigations referenced above was dedicated to the public by the inventors. Two other patents relating to formulations of guanfacine remain in each of the lawsuits regarding INTUNIV. Those two patents expire on December 20, 2020 and July 4, 2022.

REPLAGAL

Mt. Sinai School of Medicine of New York University (“Mt. Sinai”) initiated lawsuits against Shire in Sweden on April 14, 2010, and in Germany on April 20, 2010, alleging that Shire's enzyme replacement therapy (“ERT”) for Fabry disease, REPLAGAL, infringes Mt. Sinai's European Patent No. 1 942 189, granted April 14, 2010.  Mt.Sinai sought injunctions against the use of REPLAGAL in these jurisdictions until expiration of the patent. Mt.Sinai has been granted Supplementary Protection Certificates (“SPC”) in respect of the patent in certain EU countries (including Sweden and Germany) which, where granted, extends the patent until August 2016. Where no SPC has been granted, the patent expires November 2013.

Shire filed an opposition against Mt.Sinai's patent before the European Patent Office (“EPO”) on July 23, 2010, and commenced invalidity proceedings in the UK on December 8, 2010. Mt. Sinai counterclaimed alleging infringement in the UK proceedings. 

On May 9, 2012, Shire and Mt. Sinai agreed to settle all proceedings in connection with the validity and infringement by REPLAGAL of Mt. Sinai's European Patent No. 1 942 189. The parties agreed to discontinue all court and related proceedings in this dispute, and Mt. Sinai has granted Shire a non-exclusive license to the patent in connection with the on-going sales of REPLAGAL in the EU and in certain other non-EU territories. Shire has made an up-front cash payment to Mt.Sinai and will make additional cash payments based on REPLAGAL sales over the license term.

FOSRENOL

In February 2009 Shire was notified that three separate ANDAs were submitted under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market generic versions of all approved strengths of FOSRENOL. The notices were received from Barr Laboratories, Inc. (“Barr”); Mylan, Inc., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Matrix Laboratories, Inc. (collectively, “Mylan-Matrix”); and Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”). In December 2010, Shire was notified that Alkem Laboratories Ltd. (“Alkem”) submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market generic versions of all approved strengths of FOSRENOL. Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed lawsuits in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York against each of Barr, Mylan-Matrix and Natco and in both the US District Court for the Southern District of New York and the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Alkem for infringement of certain of Shire's FOSRENOL patents.  In April 2011, Shire and Barr reached a settlement which provides Barr with a license to market its own generic version of FOSRENOL in the US but only after October 1, 2021, or earlier under certain circumstances. No payments to Barr are involved with the settlement. As a result of the settlement, the lawsuit against Barr was subsequently dismissed. The lawsuits against both Mylan-Matrix and Alkem have been dismissed, and consequently, each of Mylan-Matrix and Alkem may enter the market upon US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval of their respective versions of generic FOSRENOL.  In April 2012 the 30 month stay of approval with respect to Natco expired. No trial date has been set with respect to Natco.

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 US District Court for the District of Delaware against Zydus and Cadila Healthcare Limited, doing business as Zydus Cadila. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months. All scheduled dates in the lawsuit have been vacated, including the Markman hearing date originally scheduled for April 26, 2012 and the trial date originally scheduled for October 8, 2012. No dates have been rescheduled.

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 US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Osmotica. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months.A Markman hearing is scheduled for February 2013, although no specific date has been set. No trial date has been set.

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 US District Court for the Southern District of Florida against Watson Laboratories Inc.-Florida and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months. In August 2012, Shire filed an amended complaint adding Watson Pharma, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. as defendants. No date for a Markman hearing has been set. A trial is scheduled to begin on February 11, 2013.

In April 2012, Shire was notified that Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. 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 US District Court for the Middle District of Florida against Mylan. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of the ANDA for up to 30 months.No date for a Markman hearing has been set. A trial is scheduled to begin on June 2, 2014.

ADDERALL XR

On November 1, 2010 Impax filed suit against Shire in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York claiming that Shire is in breach of its supply contract for the authorized generic version of ADDERALL XR.  Shire's ability to supply this product is limited by quota restrictions that the US Drug Enforcement Administration places on amphetamine, which is the product's active ingredient. Impax is seeking specific performance, equitable relief and damages. Shire has filed a counterclaim against Impax seeking damages and a declaratory judgment that Shire has satisfied its obligations under the supply contract. The April 10, 2012 trial date has been postponed and a new trial date has not yet been set.

In February 2011, Shire was notified that Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Floridahad submitted an ANDA under the Hatch-Waxman Act seeking permission to market a generic version of all approved strengths of ADDERALL XR. This new ANDA is not covered under the existing settlement agreements entered into in November 2007 between Shire and Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the “Settlement Agreements”). The Settlement Agreements cover a different ANDA and do not provide any license for Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida to sell the products covered in Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida's new ANDA.Within the requisite 45 day period, Shire filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida, Watson Pharm, Inc., Andrx Corporation, and Andrx Pharmaceuticals, L.L.C. for infringement of certain of Shire's ADDERALL XR patents and also for breach of contract in connection with the Settlement Agreements. The filing of the lawsuit triggered a stay of approval of this ANDA for up to 30 months. A Markman hearing was held on June 13, 2012 but a decision has not yet been given. On June 22, 2012, the FDA responded to Shire's ADDERALL XR citizen petition and set forth more stringent bioequivalence standards that all ANDAs for ADDERALL XR must meet for approval. On July 30, 2012, Shire filed a request with the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeking a 90-day stay of these legal proceedings because Shire believes Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida's ANDA fails to meet the FDA's new bioequivalence standards and will not receive FDA approval. The judge granted the 90-day stay on August 3, 2012. No trial date has been set.

Subpoena related to ADDERALL XR, DAYTRANA and VYVANSE

On September 23, 2009 the Company received a civil subpoena from the US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General in coordination with the US Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania seeking production of documents related to the sales and marketing of ADDERALL XR, DAYTRANA and VYVANSE. The investigation covers whether Shire engaged in off-label promotion and other conduct that may implicate the civil False Claims Act. Shire is cooperating fully with this investigation. At this time, Shire is unable to predict the outcome or duration of this investigation.

Investigation related to DERMAGRAFT

Shire understands that the Department of Justice, including the US Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division and the US Attorney's Office for Washington, DC, is conducting civil and criminal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of ABH relating to DERMAGRAFT.  Shire is cooperating fully with these investigations. Shire is not in a position at this time to predict the scope, duration or outcome of these investigations.

Civil Investigative Demand for ADDERALL XR, ADDERALL XR Authorized Generics and VYVANSE

On April 5, 2012 Shire received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the United States Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) requesting that Shire provide it with certain information regarding the supply and reported shortages of ADDERALL XR and its authorized generics and the marketing and sale of ADDERALL XR, its authorized generics and VYVANSE. Shire believes the CID was triggered by reports of product shortages of ADDERALL XR and the authorized generic products in 2011. Shire is cooperating fully with the FTC. At this time, Shire is unable to predict the outcome or duration of this investigation. Separately, members of the US Congress are reviewing industry wide drug shortages which have been well publicized in the US media and Shire has responded to a specific inquiry relating to ADDERALL XR.