Commitments and Contingencies
Commercial Manufacturing, Collaboration, License, and Distribution Agreements
The Company continues to seek to enhance its product line and develop a balanced portfolio of differentiated products through product acquisitions and in-licensing. Accordingly, the Company, in certain instances, may be contractually obligated to make potential future development, regulatory, and commercial milestone, royalty and/or profit sharing payments in conjunction with collaborative agreements or acquisitions that the Company has entered into with third parties. The Company has also licensed certain technologies or intellectual property from various third parties. The Company is generally required to make upfront payments as well as other payments upon successful completion of regulatory or sales milestones. The agreements generally permit the Company to terminate the agreement with no significant continuing obligation. The Company could be required to make significant payments pursuant to these arrangements. These payments are contingent upon the occurrence of certain future events and, given the nature of these events, it is unclear when, if ever, the Company may be required to pay such amounts. Further, the timing of any future payment is not reasonably estimable.
The Company's legal proceedings are complex, constantly evolving and subject to uncertainty. As such, the Company cannot predict the outcome or impact of the legal proceedings set forth below. And the Company is subject to legal proceedings that are not set forth below. While the Company believes it has valid claims and/or defenses to the matters described below, the nature of litigation is unpredictable, and the outcome of the following proceedings could include damages, fines, penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. For any proceedings where losses are probable and reasonably capable of estimation, the Company accrues for a potential loss. While these accruals have been deemed reasonable by the Company’s management, the assessment process relies heavily on estimates and assumptions that may ultimately prove inaccurate or incomplete. Additionally, unforeseen circumstances or events may lead the Company to subsequently change its estimates and assumptions. Unless otherwise indicated below, the Company is at this time unable to estimate the possible loss, if any, associated with such litigation.
The Company currently intends to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these proceedings as appropriate. From time to time, however, the Company may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that it believes to be in its best interest. Resolution of any or all claims, legal proceedings or investigations could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations and/or cash flow in any given accounting period, or on the Company's overall financial condition.
Additionally, the Company manufactures and derives a portion of its revenue from the sale of pharmaceutical products in the opioid class of drugs, and may therefore face claims arising from the regulation and/or consumption of such products.
Although the outcome and costs of the asserted and unasserted claims is difficult to predict, based on the information presently known to management, the Company does not currently expect the ultimate liability, if any, for such matters to have a material adverse effect on its business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.
Medicaid Reimbursement Accrual
The Company is required to provide pricing information to state agencies that administer federal Medicaid programs. Certain state agencies have alleged that manufacturers have reported improper pricing information, which allegedly caused them to overpay reimbursement costs. Reserves are periodically established by the Company for any potential claims or settlements of overpayment. Although the Company intends to vigorously defend against any such claims, it had a reserve of $15 million at both March 31, 2019 and December 31, 2018. The ultimate settlement of any potential liability for such claims may be higher or lower than estimated.
There is substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical, biological, and biotechnology industries with respect to the manufacture, use, and sale of new products which are the subject of conflicting patent and intellectual property claims. One or more patents often cover the brand name products for which the Company is developing generic versions and the Company typically has patent rights covering the Company’s branded products.
Under federal law, when a drug developer files an Abbreviated New Drug Application ("ANDA") for a generic drug seeking approval before expiration of a patent which has been listed with the FDA as covering the brand name product, the developer must certify its product will not infringe the listed patent(s) and/or the listed patent is invalid or unenforceable (commonly referred to as a "Paragraph IV" certification). Notices of such certification must be provided to the patent holder, who may file a suit for patent infringement within 45 days of the patent holder’s receipt of such notice. If the patent holder files suit within the 45-day period, the FDA can review and tentatively approve the ANDA, but generally is prevented from granting final marketing approval of the product until a final judgment in the action has been rendered in favor of the generic drug developer, or 30 months from the date the notice was received, whichever is sooner. The Company’s Generic segment is typically subject to patent infringement litigation brought by branded pharmaceutical manufacturers in connection with the Company’s Paragraph IV certifications seeking an order delaying the approval of the Company’s ANDA until expiration of the patent(s) at issue in the litigation. Likewise, the Company’s Specialty segment is currently involved in patent infringement litigation against generic drug manufacturers that have filed Paragraph IV certifications to market their generic drugs prior to expiration of the Company’s patents at issue in the litigation.
The uncertainties inherent in patent litigation make the outcome of such litigation difficult to predict. For the Company’s Generics segment, the potential consequences in the event of an unfavorable outcome in such litigation include delaying launch of its generic products until patent expiration. If the Company were to launch its generic product prior to successful resolution of a patent litigation, the Company could be liable for potential damages measured by the profits lost by the branded product manufacturer rather than the profits earned by the Company if it is found to infringe a valid, enforceable patent, or enhanced treble damages in cases of willful infringement. For the Company’s Specialty segment, an unfavorable outcome may significantly accelerate generic competition ahead of expiration of the patents covering the Company’s branded products. All such litigation typically involves significant expense.
The Company is generally responsible for all of the patent litigation fees and costs associated with current and future products not covered by its alliance and collaboration agreements. The Company has agreed to share legal expenses with respect to third-party and Company products under the terms of certain of the alliance and collaboration agreements. The Company records the costs of patent litigation as expense in the period when incurred for products it has developed, as well as for products which are the subject of an alliance or collaboration agreement with a third-party.
Patent Defense Matters
Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, et. al. (Aripiprazole)
In March 2015, Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. filed suit against Amneal in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging patent infringement based on the filing of Amneal’s ANDA for a generic alternative to Otsuka’s Abilify® tablet product. In 2016, the District Court granted Amneal’s motion to dismiss several of the patents in suit. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal with respect to one such patent and Otsuka did not appeal the District Court’s decision with respect to the other patents. At this time one patent remains in the suit and the District Court has not yet set a trial date with respect to that patent. Amneal, like numerous other generic manufacturers, has launched its generic version of Otsuka’s Abilify® "at-risk," prior to trial on the remaining patent-in-suit, and continues to sell the product.
Patent Infringement Matters
Impax Laboratories, LLC. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (Rytary®)
On December 21, 2017, Impax filed suit against Zydus Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (collectively, "Zydus") in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,089,608, based on the filing of Zydus’s ANDA relating to carbidopa and levodopa extended release capsules, generic to Rytary®. Zydus answered the complaint on April 27, 2018, asserting counterclaims of non-infringement and invalidity of U.S. Pat. Nos. 7,094,427; 8,377,474; 8,454,998; 8,557,283; and 9,089,607. Impax answered Zydus’s counterclaims on June 1, 2018. Zydus filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding its counterclaims. On November 29, 2018, the Court granted Zydus’s motion for judgment as to its counterclaims. A case schedule has been set with trial anticipated in February 2020.
Other Litigation Related to the Company’s Business
Opana ER® FTC Antitrust Suit
On February 25, 2014, Impax received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) from the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) concerning its investigation into the drug Opana® ER and its generic equivalents. On March 30, 2016, the FTC filed a complaint against Impax, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Endo"), and others in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging that Impax and Endo violated antitrust laws when they entered into a June 2010 co-promotion and development agreement and a June 2010 settlement agreement that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. In July 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and a motion to sever the claims regarding Opana® ER from claims with respect to a separate settlement agreement that was challenged by the FTC. On October 20, 2016, the Court granted the motion to sever, formally terminating the suit against Impax, with an order that the FTC re-file no later than November 3, 2016 and dismissed the motion to dismiss as moot. On October 25, 2016, the FTC filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. On January 19, 2017, the FTC filed a Part 3 Administrative complaint against Impax with similar allegations regarding Impax’s June 2010 settlement agreement with Endo that resolved patent litigation in connection with the submission of Impax’s ANDA for generic original Opana® ER. Impax filed its answer to the Administrative Complaint on February 7, 2017. Trial concluded on November 15, 2017. On May 11, 2018, the Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Impax and dismissed the case in its entirety. The government appealed this ruling to the FTC. On March 28, 2019, the FTC issued an Opinion & Order reversing the Administrative Law Judge’s initial dismissal decision. The FTC found that Impax had violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by engaging in an unfair method of competition, and accordingly entered an order enjoining Impax from entering into anticompetitive reverse patent settlements (or agreements with other generic original Opana® ER manufacturers) and requiring Impax to maintain an antitrust compliance program. The Company intends to appeal.
Opana ER® Antitrust Litigation
From June 2014 to April 2015, 14 complaints styled as class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (also known as end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct purchasers (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) were filed against the manufacturer of the brand drug Opana ER® and Impax.
The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise Value Drug Company; Meijer Inc. The end-payor plaintiffs comprise the Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Wisconsin Masons’ Health Care Fund; Massachusetts Bricklayers; Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund; International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 138 Welfare Fund; Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana; Kim Mahaffay; and Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise Walgreen Co.; The Kroger Co.; Safeway, Inc.; HEB Grocery Company L.P.; Albertson’s LLC; Rite Aid Corporation; Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp.; and CVS Pharmacy, Inc.
On December 12, 2014, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPML") ordered the pending class actions transferred to the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated pretrial proceedings, as In Re Opana ER Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2580). (Actions subsequently filed in other jurisdictions also were transferred by the JPML to the Northern District of Illinois to be coordinated or consolidated with the coordinated proceedings, and the District Court likewise has consolidated the opt-out plaintiffs’ actions with the direct purchaser class actions for pretrial purposes.)
In each case, the complaints allege that Endo engaged in an anticompetitive scheme by, among other things, entering into an anticompetitive settlement agreement with Impax to delay generic competition of Opana ER® and in violation of state and federal antitrust laws. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. Discovery, including expert discovery, is ongoing. On March 25, 2019, plaintiffs filed motions for class certification and opening expert reports. Defendants’ oppositions to class certification and rebuttal expert reports are due to be filed by August 8, 2019. No trial date has been scheduled.
The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition.
Sergeants Benevolent Association Health & Welfare Fund v. Actavis, PLC, et. al.
In August 2015, a complaint styled as a class action was filed against Forest Laboratories (a subsidiary of Actavis plc) and numerous generic drug manufacturers, including Amneal, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York involving patent litigation settlement agreements between Forest Laboratories and the generic drug manufacturers concerning generic versions of Forest’s Namenda IR product. The complaint (as amended on February 12, 2016) asserts federal and state antitrust claims on behalf of indirect purchasers, who allege in relevant part that during the class period they indirectly purchased Namenda® IR or its generic equivalents in various states at higher prices than they would have absent the defendants’ allegedly unlawful anticompetitive conduct. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On September 13, 2016, the Court stayed the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims pending factual development or resolution of claims brought in a separate, related complaint by direct purchasers (in which the Company is not a defendant). On September 10, 2018, the Court lifted the stay, referred the case to the assigned Magistrate Judge for supervision of supplemental, non-duplicative discovery in advance of mediation to be scheduled in 2019. The parties thereafter participated in supplemental discovery, as well as supplemental motion-to-dismiss briefing. On December 26, 2018, the Court granted in part and denied in part motions to dismiss the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ claims. On January 7, 2019, Amneal, its relevant co-defendants, and the indirect purchaser plaintiffs informed the Magistrate Judge that they had agreed to mediation, which occurred in April 2019. The Company has reached a settlement in principle with plaintiffs, subject to execution of definitive documentation. The amount of the settlement is not expected to be material to the Company's consolidated financial statements.
Attorney General of the State of Connecticut Interrogatories and Subpoena Duces Tecum
On July 14, 2014, Impax received a subpoena and interrogatories (the "Subpoena") from the State of Connecticut Attorney General ("Connecticut AG") concerning its investigation into sales of Impax's generic product, digoxin. According to the Connecticut AG, the investigation is to determine whether anyone engaged in a contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade or commerce which has the effect of (i) fixing, controlling or maintaining prices or (ii) allocating or dividing customers or territories relating to the sale of digoxin in violation of Connecticut state antitrust law. The Company has produced documents and information in response to the Subpoena. To the knowledge of the Company, no proceedings by the Connecticut AG have been initiated against the Company at this time. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this investigation.
United States Department of Justice Investigations
On November 6, 2014, Impax disclosed that one of its sales representatives received a grand jury subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (the "DOJ"). In connection with this same investigation, on March 13, 2015, Impax received a grand jury subpoena from the DOJ requesting the production of information and documents regarding the sales, marketing, and pricing of certain generic prescription medications. In particular, the DOJ’s investigation currently focuses on four generic medications: digoxin tablets, terbutaline sulfate tablets, prilocaine/lidocaine cream, and calcipotriene topical solution. The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue cooperating with the investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation.
On April 30, 2018, Impax received a CID from the Civil Division of the DOJ (the "Civil Division"). The CID requests the production of information and documents regarding the pricing and sale of Impax’s pharmaceuticals and Impax’s interactions with other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. According to the CID, the investigation concerns allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Impax, engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted to the Federal government. The Company has been cooperating and intends to continue cooperating with the Civil Division’s investigation. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the investigation.
Texas State Attorney General Civil Investigative Demand
On May 27, 2014, a CID was served on Amneal by the Office of the Attorney General for the state of Texas (the "Texas AG") relating to products distributed by Amneal under a specific Amneal labeler code. Shortly thereafter, Amneal received a second CID with respect to the same products sold by Interpharm Holding, Inc. ("Interpharm"), the assets of which had been acquired by Amneal in June 2008. Amneal completed its production of the direct and indirect sales transaction data in connection with the products at issue and provided this information to the Texas AG in November 2015. In May 2016, the Texas AG delivered two settlement demands to Amneal in connection with alleged overpayments made by the State of Texas for such products under its Medicaid programs. For the Amneal and Interpharm products at issue, the Texas AG’s initial demand was for an aggregate total of $36 million based on $16 million in alleged overpayments. After analyzing the Texas AG’s demand, Amneal raised certain questions regarding the methodology used in the Texas AG’s overpayment calculations, including the fact that the calculations treated all pharmacy claims after 2012 for the products at issue as claims for over-the-counter ("OTC") drugs, even though the products were prescription pharmaceuticals. This had the effect of increasing the alleged overpayment because the dispensing fee for OTC drugs was lower than that for prescription drugs. Therefore, the Texas AG’s calculations were derived by subtracting a lower (and incorrect) OTC dispensing fee from the higher (and correct) prescription dispensing fee. The Texas AG later acknowledged this discrepancy. In March 2019, the Texas AG provided Amneal with a re-calculation of the alleged overpayment, and Amneal is in discussions with the Texas AG.
In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation
Between March 2016 and January 2019, numerous complaints styled as antitrust class actions on behalf of direct purchasers and indirect purchasers (or end-payors) and several separate individual complaints on behalf of certain direct and indirect purchasers (the “opt-out plaintiffs”) have been filed against manufacturers of generic digoxin, lidocaine/prilocaine, glyburide-metformin, and metronidazole, including Impax.
The end-payor plaintiffs comprise Plaintiff International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Fund; Tulsa Firefighters Health and Welfare Trust; NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund; Pipe Trade Services MN; Edward Carpinelli; Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund; Nina Diamond; UFCW Local 1500 Welfare Fund; Minnesota Laborers Health and Welfare Fund; The City of Providence, Rhode Island; Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund; United Food & Commercial Workers and Employers Arizona Health and Welfare Trust; Ottis McCrary; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 33 Health and Welfare Fund; Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Unite Here Health; Valerie Velardi; and Louisiana Health Service Indemnity Company. The direct purchaser plaintiffs comprise KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. a/k/a Kinney Drugs, Inc.; Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc.; César Castillo, Inc.; Ahold USA, Inc.; and FWK Holdings, L.L.C. The opt-out plaintiffs comprise The Kroger Co.; Albertsons Companies, LLC; H.E. Butt Grocery Company L.P.; Humana Inc.; and United Healthcare Services, Inc.
On April 6, 2017, the JPML ordered the consolidation of all civil actions involving allegations of antitrust conspiracies in the generic pharmaceutical industry regarding 18 generic drugs in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, as In Re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 2724). Consolidated class action complaints were filed on August 15, 2017 for each of the 18 drugs; Impax is named as a defendant in the 2 complaints respecting digoxin and lidocaine-prilocaine. Impax also is a defendant in the class action complaint filed with the MDL court on June 22, 2018 by certain direct purchasers of glyburide-metformin and metronidazole.
Each of the various complaints alleges a conspiracy to fix, maintain, stabilize, and/or raise prices, rig bids, and allocate markets or customers for the particular drug products at issue. Plaintiffs seek, among other things, unspecified monetary damages and equitable relief, including disgorgement and restitution. On October 16, 2018, the Court denied Impax and its co-defendants’ motion to dismiss the digoxin complaint. On February 15, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss various state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims brought by two classes of indirect purchasers in the digoxin action. The Court dismissed seven state law claims in the end-payor plaintiffs’ complaint and six state law claims in the indirect reseller plaintiffs’ complaint. Motions to dismiss the glyburide-metformin and metronidazole complaint, as well as 2 of the complaints filed by certain opt-out plaintiffs, were filed February 21, 2019. On March 11, 2019, the Court issued an order approving a stipulation withdrawing the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ glyburide-metformin claims against Impax. Document discovery otherwise is proceeding.
In May 2019, the Company received letters from the State Attorneys General for South Carolina and Massachusetts providing notice that those states intend to pursue claims against the Company for alleged violations of federal and state antitrust and consumer protection laws relating to generic drug pricing.
The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to the claims asserted with respect to the litigation. However, any adverse outcome could negatively affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations, cash flows and/or overall financial condition.
Prescription Opioid Litigation
The Company and certain of its affiliates have been named as defendants in various matters relating to the promotion and sale of prescription opioid pain relievers. The Company is aware that other individuals and states and political subdivisions are filing comparable actions against, among others, manufacturers and parties that have promoted and sold prescription opioid pain relievers, and additional suits may be filed.
The complaints, asserting claims under provisions of different state and Federal law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing of opioids, and seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. None of the complaints specifies the exact amount of damages at issue. The Company and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or intend to file motions to dismiss where possible. Each of the opioid-related matters described below is in its early stages. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend these cases. In light of the inherent uncertainties of civil litigation, the Company is not in a position to predict the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or provide an estimate of the amount or range of potential loss in the event of an unfavorable outcome in any of these matters.
On August 17, 2017, plaintiff Linda Hughes, as the mother of Nathan Hughes, decedent, filed a complaint in Missouri state court naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York LLC, Impax, five other pharmaceutical company defendants, and three healthcare provider defendants. Plaintiff alleges that use of defendants’ opioid medications caused the death of her son, Nathan Hughes. The complaint alleges causes of action against Amneal and Impax for strict product liability, negligent product liability, violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and fraudulent misrepresentation. The case was removed to federal court on September 18, 2017. It was transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on February 2, 2018 and is part of the multidistrict litigation pending as In Re National Prescription Opiate Litigation, MDL No. 2804 (the “MDL”). Plaintiff has filed a motion to remand the case to Missouri state court. That motion remains pending before the MDL court. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On March 15, 2018, plaintiff Scott Ellington, purporting to represent the State of Arkansas, more than sixty counties and a dozen cities, filed a complaint in Arkansas state court naming Gemini Laboratories, LLC and fifty-one other pharmaceutical companies as defendants. Plaintiffs allege that Gemini and the other pharmaceutical company defendants improperly marketed, sold, and distributed opioid medications and failed to adequately warn about the risks of those medications. Plaintiffs allege causes of actions against Gemini and the other pharmaceutical company defendants for negligence and nuisance and alleged violations of multiple Arkansas statutes. Plaintiffs request past damages and restitution for monies allegedly spent by the State of Arkansas and the county and city plaintiffs for “extraordinary and additional services” for responding to what plaintiffs term the “Arkansas Opioid Epidemic.” Plaintiffs also seek prospective damages to allow them to “comprehensively intervene in the Arkansas Opioid Epidemic,” punitive and treble damages as provided by law, and their costs and fees. The complaint does not include any specific damage amounts. Gemini filed a general denial and, on June 28, 2018, it joined the other pharmaceutical company defendants in moving to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint. On January 29, 2019, the Court granted without prejudice Gemini’s motion to dismiss and dismissed Gemini from the litigation on March 22, 2019.
On March 27, 2018, plaintiff American Resources Insurance Company, Inc. filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Impax, the Impax Generics Division, and thirty-five other pharmaceutical company defendants. Plaintiff seeks certification of a class of insurers that since January 1, 2010, allegedly have been wrongfully required to: (i) reimburse for prescription opioids that allegedly were promoted, sold, and distributed illegally and improperly by the pharmaceutical company defendants; and (ii) incur costs for treatment of overdoses of opioid medications, misuse of those medications, or addiction to them. The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages, but plaintiff’s complaint does not include any allegation of specific damage amounts. On or about May 2, 2018, the case was transferred to the MDL. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On May 30, 2018, plaintiff William J. Comstock filed a complaint in Washington state court against Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and four other pharmaceutical company defendants. Plaintiff alleges he became addicted to opioid medications manufactured and sold by the pharmaceutical company defendants, which plaintiff contends caused him to experience opioid-induced psychosis, prolonged hospitalizations, pain, and suffering. Plaintiff asserts causes of action against Amneal and the other pharmaceutical company defendants for negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. On July 12, 2018, Amneal and other defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. On August 17, 2018, the case was transferred to the MDL. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On June 18, 2018, a Subpoena and CID issued by the Office of the Attorney General of Kentucky, Office of Consumer Protection was served on Amneal. The CID contains eleven requests for production of documents pertaining to opioid medications manufactured and/or sold by Amneal, or for which Amneal holds an Abbreviated New Drug Application. The Company is evaluating the CID and has been in communication with the Office of the Attorney General about the scope of the CID, the response to the CID, and the timing of the response. It is unknown if the Office of the Attorney General will pursue any claim or file a lawsuit against Amneal.
On July 9, 2018, the Muscogee (Creek) Nation filed a First Amended Complaint in its case pending in the MDL against the Company and 55 other defendants consisting of pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers, distributors, and pharmacies. Plaintiff alleges it has been damaged by the Company and the other pharmaceutical company defendants as a result of alleged improper marketing, including off-label marketing, failure to adequately warn of the risks of opioid medications, and failure to properly monitor and control diversion of opioid medications within the Nation. The case has been designated as a bellwether motion to dismiss case for the MDL, meaning it is a test case for arguments directed at the complaints filed by Indian tribes in the MDL cases. On August 31, 2018, the Company moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and also joined in separate motions to dismiss filed by different defense subgroups. Plaintiff opposed these motions. Additionally, on September 28, 2018, plaintiff filed a motion to add Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and to dismiss the Company from the complaint. The Company opposed that motion, and plaintiff filed a reply on October 19, 2018. On April 1, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ruiz issued a Report and Recommendation as to the Company’s motion to dismiss, recommending dismissal of plaintiff’s Lanham Act claims and state-law claims based on an alleged duty to correct alleged misrepresentations of brand-name manufacturers, but recommending denial of relief as to all other claims. On April 12, 2019, Magistrate Judge Ruiz overruled the Company’s objection to adding Amneal and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, but dismissed the Company. Amneal and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, filed an objection to the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation as to the Company’s motion to dismiss on April 29, 2019.
On July 18, 2018, the County of Webb, Texas requested waivers of service from Amneal and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, in its case pending in the MDL. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, filed against Amneal and forty-one other defendants consisting of pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers, distributors, and pharmacy benefit managers, alleges damages as a result of Amneal’s and the pharmaceutical company defendants’ improper marketing, failure to adequately warn of the risks of opioid medications, and failure to properly monitor and control diversion of opioid medications in or affecting Webb County. Amneal and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC have returned the requested waivers. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On August 24, 2018, the Tucson Medical Center filed a complaint against the Company and 18 other defendants consisting of pharmaceutical companies, distributors, and unidentified John Doe defendants, in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Pima County. Plaintiff alleges damages as a result of Amneal’s and the pharmaceutical company defendants’ improper marketing, failure to adequately warn of the risks of opioid medications, and failure to properly monitor and control diversion of opioid medications. Plaintiff seeks economic damages related to its purchase of opioid medications and for the costs of unreimbursed healthcare it has provided as a result of the opioid epidemic over and above ordinary healthcare services. In addition, Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, awards of attorney’s fees, and abatement of the alleged public nuisance, as provided by law. On September 24, 2018, the distributor defendants removed the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. Plaintiff filed a motion to remand on September 25, 2018, which the distributor defendants opposed. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on October 1, 2018. On October 8, 2018, following the Court’s denial of its remand motion, Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its Complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff re-filed its Complaint on October 9, 2018, in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Pima County, along with a motion to designate the case as “complex.” The distributor defendants filed a notice of removal on October 29, 2018. Plaintiff filed an Emergency Motion to Remand on October 30, 2018. On December 19, 2018, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion and remanded the case to the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona. On February 13, 2019, the Company again filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The defendants (including the Company) also moved for a discovery stay pending resolution of their motions to dismiss. The Court entered an order on April 8, 2019 staying discovery until the earlier of June 25, 2019 or when the Court rules on the defendants' separate motions to dismiss.
On October 4, 2018, the City of Martinsville, Virginia, filed a complaint in Virginia state court, naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Impax, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and 45 other pharmaceutical companies and other entities as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable for the economic and non-economic injuries allegedly suffered by resident doctors, health care payors, and opioid-addicted individuals, as well as for the costs incurred in addressing the opioid epidemic. Plaintiff requests an unspecified amount of damages against the defendants. The case was removed to federal court on December 13, 2018 and was conditionally transferred to the MDL on December 27, 2018. Plaintiff opposed the transfer to the MDL and moved to remand the case to Virginia state court. On February 14, 2019, the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, remanded the case to the Martinsville Circuit Court in Martinsville, Virginia. (Nine other Virginia municipalities have filed identical complaints naming the same defendants, but none have been served on the Company or its affiliates). The unserved Virginia cases have been removed and are in federal court, though plaintiffs have filed motions to remand and are opposing transfer of those cases to the MDL court. On April 24, 2019, the Court in Martinsville, Virginia, stayed this case until it is determined whether the other Virginia cases that were removed to federal court will be remanded, or until the parties or the court may determine whether consolidation of this case with others is possible in Virginia state court.
In October and November 2018, the SouthEast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, the Kodiak Area Native Association, and the Norton Sound Health Corporation requested that the Company execute waivers of service in their cases pending in the MDL. Plaintiffs’ complaints name the Company and 37 other entities as defendants. Plaintiffs allege damages and seek injunctive relief, compensatory and statutory damages, “as well as the means to abate the epidemic” that they allege was “created by Defendants’ wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.” All activity in these cases is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On December 3, 2018, Appalachian Regional Healthcare, Inc., filed a complaint in Kentucky state court, naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, and 32 other pharmaceutical companies and other entities as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable for the economic and non-economic injuries allegedly suffered by Kentucky’s hospitals and others. Plaintiff requested an unspecified amount of damages against the defendants. The case has now been removed to federal court, and responsive pleading deadlines are suspended pending remand or transfer to the MDL.
On January 23, 2019, Indian Health Council, Inc., requested that the Company execute a waiver of service in its case pending in the MDL. Plaintiff’s complaint names the Company and 18 other pharmaceutical companies and other entities as defendants. Plaintiff, an intertribal health organization which provides healthcare services to its consortium’s member tribes, alleges that the defendants are liable for the economic injuries it allegedly suffered as a result of its role in responding to an alleged opioid epidemic. Plaintiff requests an unspecified amount of damages against the defendants. The case has been transferred to the MDL. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On February 7, 2019, Kentucky River District Health Department requested that the Company execute a waiver of service in its case pending in the MDL. Plaintiff’s putative class action complaint names Amneal and 20 other pharmaceutical companies and other entities as defendants. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants are liable for the economic injuries it suffered, on behalf of itself and similarly situated Kentucky health departments, as a result of their role in responding to an alleged opioid epidemic. Plaintiff requests an unspecified amount of damages against the defendants. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
In February and March 2019, the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association and Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium requested that the Company execute waivers of service in their cases pending in the MDL. Plaintiffs’ complaints name the Company and 37 other entities as defendants. Plaintiffs allege damages and seek injunctive relief, compensatory and statutory damages, “as well as the means to abate the epidemic” that they allege was “created by Defendants’ wrongful and/or unlawful conduct.” All activity in these cases is stayed by order of the MDL court.
In March 2019, Glynn County, Georgia, requested waivers of service from the Company and Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC in its case pending in the MDL. Plaintiff’s second amended short-form complaint, filed against Amneal and 39 other defendants consisting of pharmaceutical companies, wholesalers, retailers, and distributors, alleges damages as a result of defendants’ alleged improper marketing, fraud, including RICO violations, failure to adequately warn of the risks of opioid medications, failure to properly monitor and control diversion of opioid medications in or affecting Glynn County, negligence, public nuisance, and unjust enrichment. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On March 14, 2019, the City of Concord, New Hampshire, filed a short-form amendment to its Second Amended Complaint in the MDL court adding the Company, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Impax, to 31 other defendants, including pharmaceutical companies, corporate officers of certain brand manufacturer pharmaceutical companies, and distributors. As to the Company, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, and Impax, plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and violation of RICO. Plaintiff alleges that defendants are liable for economic injuries experienced by plaintiff, including unspecified restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of unjust enrichment and attorneys’ fees, as well as for injunctive relief as to defendants’ further false or misleading statements as to opioids, and for exemplary damages. Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC was served on April 25, 2019. All activity in the case is stayed by order of the MDL court.
On March 15, 2019, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, District Council No. 21 Welfare Fund, and, separately, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Health & Welfare Fund, and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 98 Sound and Communications Health and Welfare Fund, filed complaints in the Philadelphia County Common Pleas Court, naming Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Impax, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC, and 29 other pharmaceutical companies as defendants. In each, plaintiffs allege that the defendants are liable for economic injuries allegedly suffered by the respective funds to the extent those funds paid for long term treatment of their benefit members with opioids, and for the costs incurred in addressing the opioid epidemic. Plaintiffs request an unspecified amount of damages against the defendants. On April 17, 2019, Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC and Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC were served with both complaints, and responsive pleadings thereto currently are due on or around June 17, 2019.
In addition to the above-referenced cases, in connection with the further extended MDL pleading amendment deadline of March 16, 2019, the Company and certain of its affiliates recently have been named in 424 additional complaints filed in the MDL court and in various state courts, including by:
Political subdivision / municipal entity plaintiffs from the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin;
Third-party payor plaintiffs;
Indian tribe plaintiffs; and
Hospital / healthcare provider plaintiffs.
All activity in these cases is stayed by order of the MDL court. Requests for waivers for service of process have been transmitted by plaintiffs’ counsel to defense counsel in relation to the Company and certain of its affiliates in certain of these cases. Neither the Company nor any of its affiliates has been served in these cases.
Securities Class Action
On April 17, 2017, Lead Plaintiff New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund filed an amended class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of itself and others similarly situated against Impax and four current or former Impax officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. Plaintiff asserts claims regarding alleged misrepresentations about three generic drugs. Its principal claim alleges that Impax concealed that it colluded with competitor Lannett Corp. to fix the price of generic drug digoxin, and that its digoxin profits stemmed from this collusive pricing. Plaintiff also alleges that Impax concealed from the market anticipated erosion in the price of generic drug diclofenac and that Impax overstated the value of budesonide, a generic drug that it acquired from Teva. On June 1, 2017, Impax filed its motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On September 7, 2018, the Court granted Impax’s motion, dismissing plaintiffs’ claims without prejudice and with leave to amend their complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint October 26, 2018. Impax filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on December 6, 2018; plaintiffs’ opposition thereto was filed on January 17, 2019; and Impax’s reply in support of its motion to dismiss was filed on February 7, 2019. A hearing before the Court on the motion to dismiss took place on May 2, 2019.
Shareholder Derivative Action
On February 22, 2017, Plaintiff Ed Lippman filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of Impax against former executives, a current executive, and certain current members of the board of directors alleging breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and corporate waste. This matter has been stayed pending the securities class action referenced above.
Teva v. Impax Laboratories, LLC.
On February 15, 2017, Plaintiffs Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals Curacao N.V. ("Teva") filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons and Writ of Summons (precursor to a complaint) in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas against Impax alleging that Impax breached the Strategic Alliance Agreement between the parties by not indemnifying Teva in its two litigations with GlaxoSmithKline LLC regarding Wellbutrin® XL (and therefore that Impax is liable to Teva for the amounts it paid to settle those litigations). Impax filed a Motion to Disqualify Teva’s counsel related to the matter, and on August 23, 2017, the trial court denied Impax's motion. Following the trial court’s order, Teva filed its complaint. On September 6, 2017, Impax appealed the trial court’s decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. On September 20, 2017, the Superior Court stayed the trial court action pending the outcome of Impax’s appeal. On November 2, 2018, the Superior Court affirmed the trial court’s decision. On November 16, 2018, Impax filed an application for reargument with the Superior Court, which was denied on December 28, 2018. On February 13, 2019, the Superior Court remitted the record to the trial court. On February 15, 2019, Impax filed its answer with new matter to Teva’s complaint. On February 19, 2019, the trial court issued a revised case management order providing that, absent any extensions or amendments thereto, discovery will close on July 1, 2019 and the case is expected to be ready for trial by February 3, 2020. On or about March 4, 2019, Teva filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Impax filed its answer and brief in opposition to Teva’s motion for judgment on the pleadings on March 25, 2019. On April 4, 2019, the trial court denied Teva’s motion. On April 16, 2019, Impax filed a motion to stay the proceedings and compel Teva to arbitrate the dispute pursuant to an Indemnification Release Agreement negotiated and executed by the parties in 2012. Teva’s opposition to the motion was filed on May 7, 2019.
California Wage and Hour Class Action
On August 3, 2017, Plaintiff Emielou Williams filed a class action complaint in the Superior Court for the State of California in the County of Alameda on behalf of herself and others similarly situated against Impax alleging violation of California Business and Professions Code section 17200 by violating various California wage and hour laws, and seeking, among other things, declaratory judgment, restitution of allegedly unpaid wages, and disgorgement. On October 10, 2017, Impax filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations. On December 12, 2017, the Court overruled Impax’s Demurrer to Plaintiff’s individual claims. However, it struck all of Plaintiff’s class allegations. On March 13, 2018, Plaintiff filed her First Amended Complaint once again including the same class allegations. The Company filed a Demurrer and Motion to Strike Class Allegations on April 12, 2018. On September 20, 2018, the Court again struck Plaintiff’s class allegations; Plaintiff has appealed this most recent order to the California State Court of Appeal. Plaintiff filed her opening appellate brief on February 22, 2019, and Impax’s brief in response was filed on April 18, 2019.
United States Department of Justice / Drug Enforcement Administration Subpoenas
On July 7, 2017, Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC received an administrative subpoena issued by the Long Island, NY District Office of the Drug Enforcement Administration (the “DEA”) requesting information related to compliance with certain recordkeeping and reporting requirements pursuant to regulations promulgated by the DEA. The Company is cooperating with this request for information and has provided relevant information responsive to the request. The Company and the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York have entered into a tolling agreement with respect to the investigation. The material provisions of the tolling agreement provide that the investigation is ongoing, that the U.S. Attorney will not file a claim against the Company on or before July 11, 2019, and requests that the Company agree that the applicable statute(s) of limitations be tolled during the period from January 19, 2018 through July 12, 2019. The Company cannot predict at this time whether the U.S. Attorney will file a lawsuit or other claims against the Company with respect to the investigation.
On March 14, 2019, Amneal received a subpoena (the “Subpoena”) from an Assistant U.S. Attorney (“AUSA”) for the Southern District of Florida. The Subpoena requests information and documents generally related to the marketing, sale, and distribution of oxymorphone. The Company intends to cooperate with the AUSA regarding the Subpoena. However, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of its underlying investigation.