XML 74 R23.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.2

Contingencies | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jul. 02, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Contingencies | CONTINGENCIES In view of the inherent difficulties of predicting the outcome of various types of legal proceedings, we cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below. We establish reserves for litigation and regulatory matters when losses associated with the claims become probable and the amounts can be reasonably estimated. The actual costs of resolving legal matters may be substantially higher or lower than the amounts reserved for those matters. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated as of July 2, 2022, we have not recorded a loss reserve. If certain of these matters are determined against us, there could be a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. We currently believe we have valid defenses to the claims in these lawsuits and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously regardless of whether or not we have a loss reserve. Other than what is disclosed below, we do not expect the outcome of the litigation matters to which we are currently subject to, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows. Price-Fixing Lawsuits Perrigo is a defendant in several cases in the generic pricing multidistrict litigation MDL No. 2724 (United States District Court for Eastern District of Pennsylvania). This multidistrict litigation, which has many cases that do not include Perrigo, includes class action and opt-out cases for federal and state antitrust claims, as well as complaints filed by certain states alleging violations of state antitrust laws. On July 14, 2020, the court issued an order designating the following cases to proceed on a more expedited basis (as a bellwether) than the other cases in MDL No. 2724: (a) the May 2019 state case alleging an overarching conspiracy involving more than 120 products (which does not name Perrigo a defendant) and (b) class actions alleging “single drug” conspiracies involving Clomipramine, Pravastatin, and Clobetasol. Perrigo is a defendant in the Clobetasol cases but not the others. On February 9, 2021, the Court entered an order provisionally deciding to remove the May 2019 state case and the pravastatin class cases from the bellwether proceedings. On May 7, 2021, the Court ruled that the clobetasol end payer and direct purchaser class cases will remain part of the bellwether. The Court also ruled that the June 10, 2020 state complaint against Perrigo and approximately 35 other manufacturers will move forward as a bellwether case. The bellwether cases are proceeding in discovery, which must be completed by January 17, 2023 under the schedule set by the Court. No trial dates have been set for any of the bellwether cases, or any of the other cases in the MDL. Class Action Complaints (a) Single Drug Conspiracy Class Actions We have been named as a co-defendant with certain other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in a number of class actions alleging single-product conspiracies to fix or raise the prices of certain drugs and/or allocate customers for those products starting, in some instances, as early as June 2013. The class actions were filed on behalf of putative classes of (a) direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers. The products in question are Clobetasol gel, Desonide, and Econazole. The court denied motions to dismiss each of the complaints alleging “single drug” conspiracies involving Perrigo, and the cases are proceeding in discovery. As noted above, the Clobetasol cases have been designated to proceed on a more expedited schedule than the other cases. That schedule culminates with summary judgment motions due to be filed no later than November 16, 2023. No trial dates have been set for the Clobetasol cases, and no schedules have been set for the other “single drug” conspiracy cases. (b) “Overarching Conspiracy” Class Actions The same three putative classes, including (a) direct purchasers, (b) end payors, and (c) indirect resellers, have filed two sets of class action complaints alleging that Perrigo and other manufacturers (and some individuals) entered into an “overarching conspiracy” that involved allocating customers, rigging bids and raising, maintaining, and fixing prices for various products. Each class brings claims for violations of Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act as well as several state antitrust and consumer protection statutes. Filed in June 2018, and later amended in December 2018 (with respect to direct purchasers) and April 2019 (with respect to end payors and indirect resellers), the first set of “overarching conspiracy” class actions include allegations against Perrigo and approximately 27 other manufacturers involving 135 drugs with allegations dating back to March 2011. The allegations against Perrigo concern only two formulations (cream and ointment) of one of the products at issue, Nystatin. The court denied motions to dismiss the first set of “overarching conspiracy” class actions, and they are proceeding in discovery. None of these cases are included in the group of cases on a more expedited schedule pursuant to the court’s May 17, 2021 order. In December 2019, the end payor plaintiffs filed a second "overarching conspiracy” class action against Perrigo, dozens of other manufacturers of generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals dating back to July 2009, which complaint was amended on January 7, 2021 to add additional claims. The amended end payor complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in connection with its sale of the following drugs: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. In December, 2019, the indirect reseller class plaintiffs also filed an “overarching conspiracy” class action against Perrigo, dozens of other manufacturers of generic prescription pharmaceuticals, distributors of generic pharmaceuticals, and certain individuals, dating back to January 2010. In May 2020, the plaintiffs amended their complaint and alleged that Perrigo conspired in connection with its sales of Betamethasone Dipropionate lotion, Imiquimod cream, Desonide cream and ointment, and Hydrocortisone Valerate cream. On July 1, 2022, the indirect reseller plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint that removed claims relating to Imiquimod cream but added allegations about Olopatadine Nasal Spray. The indirect reseller plaintiffs filed their second “overarching conspiracy” complaint on December 15, 2020. The complaint alleges conspiracies relating to the sale of various products that are not at issue in the earlier-filed overarching conspiracy class actions, the majority of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells, dating back to January 2010. The December 2020 indirect reseller complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in connection with its sales of Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The direct purchaser plaintiffs filed their second round overarching conspiracy complaint in February 2020 with claims dating back to July 2009. On October 21, 2020, the direct purchaser plaintiffs amended their complaint. The amended direct purchaser complaint alleges that Perrigo conspired in connection with its sale of the following drugs: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. Perrigo has not yet responded to the second set of overarching conspiracy complaints and responses are currently stayed. Opt-Out Complaints On January 22, 2018, Perrigo was named a co-defendant along with 35 other manufacturers in a complaint filed by three supermarket chains alleging that defendants conspired to fix prices of 31 generic prescription pharmaceutical products starting in 2013. On December 21, 2018, an amended complaint was filed that adds additional products and allegations against a total of 39 manufacturers for 33 products. The only allegations specific to Perrigo relate to Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. Perrigo moved to dismiss this complaint on February 21, 2019, and also signed onto a joint motion to dismiss the complaint filed by all of the Defendants named in the complaint on March 1, 2019. The joint motion was denied on August 15, 2019. The case is proceeding in discovery. Perrigo’s individual motion to dismiss is still pending. On February 3, 2020, the plaintiffs requested leave to file a second amended complaint, which it has withdrawn and refiled several times since, with the latest requested amendment filed in August 2020. The proposed amended complaint adds dozens of additional products and allegations to the original complaint. Perrigo is discussed in connection with allegations concerning an additional drug, Fenofibrate. Defendants opposed the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and the court has yet to rule on the issue. On August 3, 2018, a large managed care organization filed a complaint alleging price-fixing and customer allocation concerning 17 different products among 27 manufacturers including Perrigo. The only allegations specific to Perrigo in the initial complaint concerned Clobetasol. Perrigo moved to dismiss this complaint on February 21, 2019 and filed an additional, joint, motion to dismiss on March 1, 2019. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April 1, 2019 that added additional products and allegations. The amended allegations that concern Perrigo include: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. The joint motion to dismiss was denied on August 15, 2019, but Perrigo’s individual motion to dismiss is still pending. The case is proceeding in discovery. The same organization amended a different complaint that it had filed in October 2019, which did not name Perrigo, on December 15, 2020, adding Perrigo as a defendant and asserting new allegations of alleged antitrust violations involving Perrigo and dozens of other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers. The allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The same organization filed a third complaint on December 15, 2020, naming Perrigo and dozens of other manufacturers alleging antitrust violations concerning generic pharmaceutical drugs. The allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Ammonium Lactate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Methazolamide, Promethazine HCL, and Tacrolimus. On January 16, 2019, a health insurance carrier filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of 30 products among 30 defendants. The only allegations specific to Perrigo concerned Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 15, 2020, the complaint was amended to add additional defendants and claims. The new allegations that concern Perrigo relate to Fluocinonide. The same health insurance carrier filed a new complaint on December 15, 2020, naming Perrigo and dozens of other manufacturers alleging antitrust violations concerning generic pharmaceutical drugs. The allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. On July 18, 2019, 87 health plans filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons in Pennsylvania state court to commence an action against 53 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and 17 individuals, alleging antitrust violations concerning generic pharmaceutical drugs. While Perrigo was named as a defendant, no complaint has been filed and the precise allegations and products at issue have not been identified. Proceedings in the case, including the filing of a complaint, have been stayed at the request of the plaintiffs. On December 11, 2019, a health care service company filed a complaint against Perrigo and 38 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other multi-district litigation ("MDL") complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin cream/ointment. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 15, 2020, the complaint was amended to add additional defendants and claims. The new allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. On December 16, 2019, a Medicare Advantage claims recovery company filed a complaint against Perrigo and 39 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, and Econazole. The complaint was originally filed in the District of Connecticut but has been consolidated into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet had the opportunity to respond to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 15, 2020, the complaint was amended to add additional defendants and claims. The new allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Desoximetasone, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. On December 23, 2019, several counties in New York filed an amended complaint against Perrigo and 28 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. The complaint was originally filed in New York State court but was removed to federal court and has been consolidated into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 15, 2020, the complaint was amended to add additional defendants and claims. The new allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate, Nystatin, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. On June 30, 2021, the counties filed a proposed revised second amended complaint. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 27, 2019, a healthcare management organization filed a complaint against Perrigo and 25 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. The complaint was filed originally in the Northern District of California but has been consolidated into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 15, 2020, the complaint was amended to add additional defendants and claims. The new allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. On March 1, 2020, Harris County of Texas filed a complaint against Perrigo and 29 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The products at issue that plaintiffs claim Perrigo manufacturers or sells include: Adapalene, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin, Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, Ethinyl Estradiol/Levonorgestrel, Fenofibrate, Fluocinolone, Fluocinonide, Gentamicin, Glimepiride, Griseofulvin, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Ketoconazole, Mupirocin, Nystatin, Olopatadine, Permethrin, Prednisone, Promethazine, Scopolamine, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The complaint was originally filed in the Southern District of Texas but has been transferred to the MDL. Harris County amended its complaint in May 2020. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. In May 2020, seven health plans filed a writ of summons in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia concerning an as-yet unfiled complaint against Perrigo, three dozen other manufacturers, and seventeen individuals, concerning alleged antitrust violations in connection with the pricing and sale of generic prescription pharmaceutical products. No complaint has yet been filed, so the precise allegations and products at issue are not yet clear. Proceedings in the case have been stayed. On June 9, 2020, a health insurance carrier filed a complaint against Perrigo and 25 other manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has been transferred into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 15, 2020, the complaint was amended to add additional defendants and claims. The new allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fluocinonide, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. On July 9, 2020, a drugstore chain filed a complaint against Perrigo and 39 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. Perrigo is also listed in connection with Fenofibrate. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and will be transferred into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 15, 2020, the complaint was amended to add additional defendants and claims. The new allegations relating to Perrigo concern: Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. On August 27, 2020, Suffolk County of New York filed a complaint against Perrigo and 35 other manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin cream and ointment. The other products at issue that plaintiffs claim Perrigo manufacturers or sells include: Adapalene gel, Albuterol, Benazepril HCTZ, Clotrimazole, Diclofenac Sodium, Fenofibrate, Fluocinonide, Glimepiride, Ketoconazole, Meprobamate, Imiquimod, Triamcinolone Acetonide, Erythromycin/Ethyl Solution, Betamethasone Valerate, Ciclopirox Olamine, Terconazole, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Fluticasone Propionate, Desoximetasone, Clindamycin Phosphate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Promethazine HCL, Mometasone Furoate, and Amiloride HCTZ. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of New York and has been transferred into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On September 4, 2020, a drug wholesaler and distributor filed a complaint against Perrigo and 39 other manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin, Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluticasone, Halobetasol, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Mometasone furoate, Nystatin, Prochlorperazine, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has been transferred into the MDL. Perrigo has not yet responded to the complaint, and responses are currently stayed. On December 11, 2020, a drugstore chain filed a complaint against Perrigo and 45 other manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on Adapalene, Ammonium Lactate, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, Erythromycin, Fenofibrate, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Nystatin, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has been transferred into the MDL. On December 14, 2020, a supermarket chain filed a complaint against Perrigo and 45 other manufacturers (as well as certain individuals) alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, Fenofibrate, Halobetasol, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Nystatin, Permethrin, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has been transferred into the MDL. On December 15, 2020, a drugstore chain filed a complaint against Perrigo and 45 other manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The complaint lists 63 drugs that the chain purchased from Perrigo, but the product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on Adapalene, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Desonide, Econazole, Erythromycin, Fluocinonide, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Nystatin, Prochlorperazine, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone. The complaint was filed in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and has been transferred into the MDL. On December 15, 2020, several counties in New York filed a complaint against Perrigo and 45 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The allegations that concern Perrigo include: Adapalene, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate, Nystatin, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The complaint was originally filed in New York State court but has been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL. The counties filed an amended complaint on June 30, 2021. On August 30, 2021, the county of Westchester, NY filed a complaint in New York State court against Perrigo and 45 other pharmaceutical companies alleging an overarching conspiracy to fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The allegations that concern Perrigo include: Adapalene, Betamethasone Dipropionate, Bromocriptine Mesylate, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate, Ciclopirox, Clindamycin Phosphate, Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, Erythromycin, Fluticasone Propionate, Halobetasol Propionate, Hydrocortisone Acetate, Hydrocortisone Valerate, Imiquimod, Methazolamide, Mometasone Furoate, Nystatin, Permethrin, Prochlorperazine Maleate, Promethazine HCL, Tacrolimus, and Triamcinolone Acetonide. The case has been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL. On October 8, 2021, approximately 20 health plans filed a Praecipe to Issue Writ of Summons in Pennsylvania state court to commence an action against 46 generic pharmaceutical manufacturers and 24 individuals, alleging antitrust violations concerning generic pharmaceutical drugs. While Perrigo was named as a defendant, no complaint has been filed and the precise allegations and products at issue have not been identified. On January 3, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a second Praecipe. Proceedings in the case, including the filing of a complaint, have not yet occurred. The case remains in deferred status. State Attorney General Complaint On June 10, 2020, the Connecticut Attorney General’s office filed a lawsuit on behalf of Connecticut and 50 other states and territories against Perrigo, 35 other generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, and certain individuals (including two former Perrigo employees), alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of eighty products. The allegations against Perrigo focus on the following drugs: Adapalene cream, Ammonium Lactate cream and lotion, Betamethasone dipropionate lotion, Bromocriptine tablets, Calcipotriene Betamethasone Dipropionate ointment, Ciclopirox cream, shampoo and solution, Clindamycin solution, Desonide cream and ointment, Econazole cream, Erythromycin base alcohol solution, Fluocinonide cream, Fluticasone lotion, Halobetasol cream and ointment, Hydrocortisone Acetate suppositories, Hydrocortisone Valerate cream, Imiquimod cream, Methazolamide tablets, Nystatin ointment, Prochlorperazine suppositories, Promethazine HCL suppositories, Tacrolimus ointment, and Triamcinolone cream and ointment. The Complaint was filed in the District of Connecticut, but has been transferred into the MDL. On May 7, 2021, the Court ruled that this case will move forward as a bellwether case. On September 9, 2021, the States filed an amended complaint, although the substantive allegations against Perrigo did not change. Perrigo moved to dismiss the Complaint on November 12, 2021. That motion has been fully briefed and is pending. This case is included among the “bellwether cases” designated to move on a more expedited schedule than the other cases in the MDL, and, as such, it will be subject to the January 17, 2023 discovery deadline and November 16, 2023 summary judgment deadline if the Complaint survives the pending motions to dismiss. Like the other cases in the MDL, no trial date has been set for this case. Canadian Class Action Complaint In June 2020, an end payor filed a class action in Ontario, Canada against Perrigo and 29 other manufacturers alleging an overarching conspiracy to allocate customers and/or fix, raise or stabilize prices of dozens of products, most of which Perrigo neither makes nor sells. The product conspiracies allegedly involving Perrigo focus on the same products as those involved in other MDL complaints naming Perrigo: Clobetasol, Desonide, Econazole, and Nystatin. In December 2020, Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add additional claims based on the State AG complaint of June 2020. At this stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the outcome of the liability if any, associated with the claims listed above. Securities Litigation In the United States (cases related to events in 2015-2017) On May 18, 2016, a shareholder filed a securities case against us and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Roofers’ Pension Fund v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of shareholders for the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016, inclusive. The original complaint alleged violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b5) and 14(e) against both defendants and 20(a) control person liability against Mr. Papa. In general, the allegations concerned the actions taken by us and the former executive to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015. The plaintiff also alleged that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure concerning alleged integration problems related to the Omega acquisition in the period from April 21, 2015 through May 11, 2016. On July 19, 2016, a different shareholder filed a securities class action against us and our former CEO, Joseph Papa, also in the District of New Jersey (Wilson v. Papa, et al.). The plaintiff purported to represent a class of persons who sold put options on our shares between April 21, 2015 and May 11, 2016. In general, the allegations and the claims were the same as those made in the original complaint filed in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. On December 8, 2016, the court consolidated the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the Wilson case under the Roofers' Pension Fund case number. In February 2017, the court selected the lead plaintiffs for the consolidated case and the lead counsel to the putative class. In March 2017, the court entered a scheduling order. On June 21, 2017, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint that superseded the original complaints in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case and the Wilson case. In the amended complaint, the lead plaintiffs seek to represent three classes of shareholders: (i) shareholders who purchased shares during the period from April 21, 2015 through May 3, 2017 on the U.S. exchanges; (ii) shareholders who purchased shares during the same period on the Tel Aviv stock exchange; and (iii) shareholders who owned shares on November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (the final day of the Mylan tender offer) regardless of whether the shareholders tendered their shares. The amended complaint names as defendants us and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The amended complaint alleges violations of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by us and the former executives to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure throughout the entire class period related to purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company and at Omega, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri® royalty stream. The amended complaint does not include an estimate of damages. During 2017, the defendants filed motions to dismiss, which the plaintiffs opposed. On July 27, 2018, the court issued an opinion and order granting the defendants’ motions to dismiss in part and denying the motions to dismiss in part. The court dismissed without prejudice defendants Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, Donal O’Connor, and Marc Coucke. The court also dismissed without prejudice claims arising from the Tysabri® accounting issue described above and claims alleging incorrect disclosure of organic growth described above. The defendants who were not dismissed are Perrigo Company plc, Joe Papa, and Judy Brown. The claims (described above) that were not dismissed relate to the integration issues regarding the Omega acquisition, the defense against the Mylan tender offer, and the alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. The defendants who remain in the case (the Company, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown) have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery stage of litigation began in late 2018. Discovery in the class action ended on January 31, 2021. In early April 2021, the defendants filed various post-discovery motions, including summary judgment motions; the briefing of which was completed in early July 2021. The motions are now before the court. The court held oral argument on April 7, 2022. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. On November 14, 2019, the court granted the lead plaintiffs’ motion and certified three classes for the case: (i) all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on a U.S. exchange and were damaged thereby; (ii) all those who purchased shares between April 21, 2015 through May 2, 2017 inclusive on the Tel Aviv stock exchange and were damaged thereby; and (iii) all those who owned shares as of November 12, 2015 and held such stock through at least 8:00 a.m. on November 13, 2015 (whether or not a person tendered shares in response to the Mylan tender offer) (the "tender offer class"). Defendants filed a petition for leave to appeal in the Third Circuit challenging the certification of the tender offer class. On April 30, 2020, the Third Circuit denied leave to appeal. The District Court has approved the issuance of a notice of the pendency of the class action, and the notice has been sent to shareholders who are eligible to participate in the classes. In early July 2021, the Court assigned the securities class action case (Roofer’s case) to a new judge within the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Unless otherwise noted, each of the lawsuits discussed in the following sections is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and remains with the originally assigned judge. The allegations in the complaints relate to events during certain portions of the 2015 through 2017 calendar years, including the period of the Mylan tender offer. All but one of these lawsuits allege violations of federal securities laws, but none are class actions. One lawsuit (Highfields) alleges only state law claims. Discovery in all these cases, except Starboard Value and Highfields, ended in November, 2021. The cases pending in federal court in New Jersey listed below have been suspended since January 2022, pending the ruling on the summary judgment motions in the class action case (Roofers case). We intend to defend all these lawsuits vigorously. Carmignac, First Manhattan and Similar Cases. The following seven cases were filed by the same law firm and generally make the same factual assertions but, at times, differ as to which securities laws violations they allege:
Case | Date Filed
Carmignac Gestion, S.A. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 11/1/2017
First Manhattan Co. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 2/16/2018; amended 4/20/2018
Nationwide Mutual Funds, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 10/29/2018
Schwab Capital Trust, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 1/31/2019
Aberdeen Canada Funds -- Global Equity Fund, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 2/22/2019
Principal Funds, Inc., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 3/5/2020
Kuwait Investment Authority, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 3/31/2020
The original complaints in the Carmignac case and the First Manhattan case named Perrigo, Mr. Papa, Ms. Brown, and Mr. Coucke as defendants. Mr. Coucke was dismissed as a defendant after the plaintiffs agreed to apply the July 2018 ruling in the Roofers' Pension Fund case to these two cases. The complaints in each of the other cases name only Perrigo, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown as defendants. Each complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder) and all cases except Aberdeen assert claims under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act against all defendants, as well as control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The control person claims against the individual defendants are limited to the period from April 2015 through April 2016 in the Carmignac case. The complaints in the Carmignac and First Manhattan cases also assert claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act. Each complaint alleges inadequate disclosures concerning the valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance we provided, our reporting about the generic prescription pharmaceutical business and its prospects, and the activities surrounding the efforts to defeat the Mylan tender offer during 2015, and, in each of the cases other than Carmignac, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals. The First Manhattan complaint also alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri® asset. With the exception of Carmignac, each of these cases relates to events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Many of the allegations in these cases overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, though the Nationwide Mutual, Schwab Capital, Aberdeen, Principal Funds and Kuwait complaints do not include the factual allegations that the court dismissed in the July 2018 ruling in the Roofers' Pension Fund case. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties in Carmignac and First Manhattan conferred and agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in their cases. The later filed cases adopted a similar posture. The defendants in the Carmignac and other cases listed above filed motions to dismiss addressing the additional allegations in such cases. On July 31, 2019, the court granted such motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part. That ruling applies to each of the above cases. The defendants have filed answers in each case denying liability. Discovery in these cases has ended. Mason Capital, Pentwater and Similar Cases. The following eight cases were filed by the same law firm and generally make the same factual allegations:
Case | Date Filed
Mason Capital L.P., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 1/26/2018
Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 1/26/2018
WCM Alternatives: Event-Drive Fund, et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al. | 11/15/2018
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Co., plc, et al. | 11/15/2018
Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al. | 12/18/2019
York Capital Management, L.P., et al. v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al. | 12/20/2019
Burlington Loan Management DAC v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al. | 2/12/2020
Universities Superannuation Scheme Limited v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al. | 3/2/2020
The complaints in the Mason Capital case and the Pentwater case originally named Perrigo and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo as defendants. In the July 2018 Roofers’ Pension Fund ruling, the court dismissed without prejudice each of the defendants other than Perrigo, Mr. Papa and Ms. Brown from that case; these plaintiffs later agreed that this ruling would apply to their cases as well. The complaints in each of the other cases in the above table name only Perrigo, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown as defendants. Each complaint asserts claims under Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act against all defendants, as well as control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaints in the WCM case and the Universities Superannuation Scheme case also assert claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. Each complaint alleges inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 and at various times concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri® asset. The WCM complaint also makes these allegations for the period through May 2017 and the Universities Superannuation Scheme complaint also concerns certain times during 2016. Many of the factual allegations in these cases overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, and the Mason Capital and Pentwater cases include factual allegations similar to those in the Carmignac case described above. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties in each of the above cases conferred and agreed that the ruling in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case would apply equally to the common allegations in their cases. The defendants in each of these cases have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery phase in each of these cases has ended. Harel Insurance and TIAA-CREF Cases. The following two cases were filed by the same law firm and generally make the same factual allegations relating to the period from February 2014 through May 2017 (in the Harel case) and from August 2014 through May 2017 (in the TIAA-CREF case):
Case | Date Filed
Harel Insurance Company, Ltd., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 2/13/2018
TIAA-CREF Investment Management, LLC., et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 4/20/2018
The complaints in the Harel and TIAA-CREF cases originally named Perrigo and 13 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo as defendants (adding two more individual defendants not sued in the other cases described in this section). In the July 2018 Roofers’ Pension Fund ruling, the court dismissed without prejudice 8 of the 11 defendants other than Perrigo, Mr. Papa and Ms. Brown from that case. These plaintiffs later agreed that that ruling would apply to these cases as well and also dismissed their claims against the two additional individuals that only these plaintiffs had named as defendants. Each complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against all defendants, as well as control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The complaint in the Harel case also asserts claims based on Israeli securities laws. Each of the complaints alleges inadequate disclosure around the tender offer events in 2015 and at various times during the relevant periods concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri® asset from February 2014 until the withdrawal of past financial statements in April 2017. After the court issued its July 2018 opinion in the Roofers’ Pension Fund case, the parties in the Harel and TIAA-CREF cases conferred and agreed that such ruling would apply equally to the common allegations in their cases. The defendants in each of these cases have filed answers denying liability, and the discovery phase in each of these cases has ended. Other Cases Related to Events in 2015-2017. Certain allegations in the following three cases also overlap with the allegations of the June 2017 amended complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case and with allegations in one or more of the other individual cases described in the sections above:
Case | Date Filed
Sculptor Master Fund (f/k/a OZ Master Fund, Ltd.), et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 2/6/2019
Highfields Capital I LP, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 6/4/2020
BlackRock Global Allocation Fund, Inc., et al. v. Perrigo Co. plc, et al. | 4/21/2020
Starboard Value and Opportunity C LP, et al. v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. | 2/25/2021
Each of the above complaints names Perrigo, Mr. Papa, and Ms. Brown as defendants. The Sculptor Master Fund (formerly OZ) complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against all defendants, as well as control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The parties have agreed that the court's rulings in July 2018 in the Roofers' Pension Fund case and in July 2019 in the Carmignac and related cases will apply to this case as well. The defendants have filed answers denying liability. The plaintiffs participated in the discovery proceedings in the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the various individual cases described above. The discovery phase in this case has ended. The BlackRock Global complaint also asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) and section 14(e) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants largely based on the same events during the period from April 2015 through May 2017. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during the tender offer period in 2015 and point to disclosures at various times during the period concerning valuation and integration of Omega, the financial guidance provided by us during that period, alleged price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, alleged lower performance in the generic prescription drug business during 2015 and alleged improper accounting for the Tysabri® asset. The defendants have filed answers denying liability. The plaintiffs participated in the discovery proceedings in the Roofers' Pension Fund case and the various individual cases described above. The discovery phase in this case has ended. The Starboard Value and Opportunity C LP complaint also asserts claims under Securities Exchange Act section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5) against all defendants and section 20(a) control person claims against the individual defendants based on events related to alleged price fixing activities with respect to generic prescription drugs during periods that overlap to some extent with the period alleged in the various other cases described above. Plaintiffs contend that the defendants provided inadequate disclosure during 2016 about generic prescription drug business and those alleged matters. The lawsuit was filed on February 25, 2021; but by agreement the case was administratively terminated by the court in June 2021 pending a decision on the same defendants’ motions currently pending before the court in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above. The Highfields federal case complaint asserted claims under Sections 14(e) and 18 of the Securities Exchange Act against all defendants, as well as control person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act against the individual defendants. As originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, the Highfields complaint also alleged claims under the Massachusetts Unfair Business Methods Law (chapter 93A) and Massachusetts common law claims of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. The factual allegations generally were similar to the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint in the Roofers' Pension Fund case described above, except that the Highfields plaintiffs did not include allegations about alleged collusive pricing of generic prescription drugs. In March 2020, the District of Massachusetts court granted defendants’ motion and transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey so that the activities in the case could proceed in tandem with the other cases in the District of New Jersey described above. After the transfer, in June 2020, the Highfields plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their federal lawsuit. The same Highfields plaintiffs the same day then filed a new lawsuit in Massachusetts State Court asserting the same factual allegations as in their federal lawsuit and alleging only Massachusetts state law claims under the Massachusetts Unfair Business Methods Law (chapter 93A) and Massachusetts common law claims of tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and unjust enrichment. Defendants’ motion to dismiss was fully briefed as of late November 2020, argument occurred in early May 2021. In December 2021, the Massachusetts State Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. Defendants’ filed their answers in January 2022 denying liability. The discovery phase in this case has begun (including discovery related to some factual allegations that were not part of the discovery in the actions in New Jersey federal court). The Court held a discovery conference and approved fact discovery deadlines into May, 2023 and later deadlines to complete expert discovery. In Israel (cases related to events in 2015-2017) Because our shares were traded on the Tel Aviv stock exchange under a dual trading arrangement until February 23, 2022, we are potentially subject to securities litigation in Israel. Three cases were filed; one was voluntarily dismissed in each of 2017 and 2018 and one was stayed in 2018. We are consulting with Israeli counsel about our response to these allegations and we intend to defend this case vigorously. On June 28, 2017, a plaintiff filed a complaint in Tel Aviv District Court styled Israel Elec. Corp. Employees’ Educ. Fund v. Perrigo Company plc, et al. The lead plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased Perrigo stock on the Tel Aviv stock exchange during the period from April 24, 2015 through May 3, 2017 and also a claim for those that owned shares on the final day of the Mylan tender offer (November 13, 2015). The amended complaint names as defendants the Company, Ernst & Young LLP (the Company’s auditor), and 11 current or former directors and officers of Perrigo (Mses. Judy Brown, Laurie Brlas, Jacqualyn Fouse, Ellen Hoffing, and Messrs. Joe Papa, Marc Coucke, Gary Cohen, Michael Jandernoa, Gerald Kunkle, Herman Morris, and Donal O’Connor). The complaint alleges violations under U.S. securities laws of Securities Exchange Act sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b‑5) and 14(e) against all defendants and 20(a) control person liability against the 11 individuals or, in the alternative, under Israeli securities laws. In general, the allegations concern the actions taken by us and our former executives to defend against the unsolicited takeover bid by Mylan in the period from April 21, 2015 through November 13, 2015 and the allegedly inadequate disclosure concerning purported integration problems related to the Omega acquisition, alleges incorrect reporting of organic growth at the Company, alleges price fixing activities with respect to six generic prescription pharmaceuticals, and alleges improper accounting for the Tysabri® royalty stream. The plaintiff indicates an initial, preliminary class damages estimate of 2.7 billion NIS (approximately $760.0 million at 1 NIS = 0.28 cents). After the other two cases filed in Israel were voluntarily dismissed, the plaintiff in this case agreed to stay this case pending the outcome of the Roofers’ Pension Fund case in the U.S. (described above). The Israeli court approved the stay, and this case is now stayed. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. In Israel (case related to Irish Tax events) On December 31, 2018, a shareholder filed an action against the Company, our CEO Murray Kessler, and our former CFO Ronald Winowiecki in Tel Aviv District Court (Baton v. Perrigo Company plc, et. al.). The case is a securities class action brought in Israel making similar factual allegations for the same period as those asserted in the In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig case in New York federal court in which the settlement received final approval in February 2022. This case alleges that persons who purchased securities through the Tel Aviv stock exchange and suffered damages can assert claims under Israeli securities law that will follow the liability principles of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act. The plaintiff does not provide an estimate of class damages. In 2019, the court granted two requests by Perrigo to stay the proceedings pending the resolution of proceedings in the United States. Perrigo filed a further request for a stay in February 2020, and the court granted the stay indefinitely. The plaintiff filed a motion to lift the stay then later agreed that the case should remain stayed through February 2021. The stay continued in place during 2021. After the settlement of the U.S. case (In re Perrigo Company plc Sec. Litig.), Perrigo’s counsel informed the Israeli Court of the final approval of the settlement of the U.S. case. The plaintiff filed papers in late April 2022 requesting that the Court allow the parties some additional months to explore options, and the Court required the parties to provide an update no later than June 30, 2022. In June 2022 the Company and the plaintiff reported to the court that they are attempting mediation, and the Court ordered the parties to provide a further update by September 22, 2022. The case has been transferred to a newly-appointed judge as the original judge has moved to a higher court. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Other Matters Talcum Powder The Company has been named, together with other manufacturers, in product liability lawsuits in state courts in California, Florida, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, Louisiana, Ohio, Oregon and Illinois alleging that the use of body powder products containing talcum powder causes mesothelioma and lung cancer due to the presence of asbestos. All but one of these cases involve legacy talcum powder products that have not been manufactured by the Company since 1999. One of the pending actions involves a current prescription product that contains talc as an excipient. As of July 2, 2022, the Company is currently named in 69 individual lawsuits seeking compensatory and punitive damages and has accepted a tender for a portion of the defense costs and liability from a retailer for one additional matter. The Company has several defenses and intends to aggressively defend these lawsuits. Trials for these lawsuits are currently scheduled throughout 2022, 2023 and 2024, with the earliest trial date in August 2022. Ranitidine After regulatory bodies announced worldwide that ranitidine may potentially contain N-nitrosodimethylamine ("NDMA"), a known environmental contaminant, the Company promptly began testing its externally-sourced ranitidine API and ranitidine-based products. On October 8, 2019, the Company halted shipments of the product based upon preliminary results and on October 23, 2019, the Company made the decision to conduct a voluntary retail market withdrawal. In February 2020, the resulting actions involving Zantac® and other ranitidine products were transferred for coordinated pretrial proceedings to a Multi-District Litigation (In re Zantac®/Ranitidine Products Liability Litigation MDL No. 2924) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. After the Company successfully moved to dismiss the first set of Master Complaints in the MDL, it now includes three: 1) an Amended Master Personal Injury Complaint; 2) a Consolidated Amended Consumer Economic Loss Class Action Complaint; and 3) a Consolidated Medical Monitoring Class Action Complaint. All three name the Company. Plaintiffs appealed one of the original Master Complaints, the Third-Party Payor Complaint, and two individual plaintiffs appealed their individual personal injury claims on limited grounds. The Company is not named in the appeals. On June 30, 2021, the Court dismissed all claims against the retail and distributor defendants with prejudice, thereby reducing the Company’s potential for exposure and liability related to possible indemnification. On July 8, 2021, the Court dismissed all claims against the Company with prejudice. Appeals of these dismissal orders to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit have been filed, as well several state level claims related to the theories advanced in the MDL litigation. The Company will continue to vigorously defend each of these lawsuits. As of July 2, 2022, the Company has been named in three hundred and thirteen (313) personal injury lawsuits, most of which are in the MDL tied to various federal courts alleging that plaintiffs developed various types of cancers or are placed at higher risk of developing cancer as a result of ingesting products containing ranitidine. The Company has also been named in a handful of similar lawsuits in the state courts of California, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania. The Company is named in these lawsuits with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine products, as well as distributors, repackagers, and/or retailers. Plaintiffs seek compensatory and punitive damages, and in some instances seek applicable remedies under state consumer protection laws. The Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the New Mexico Attorney General based on the following theories: violation of a New Mexico public nuisance statute, NMSA 30-8-1 to -14; common law nuisance; and negligence and gross negligence. The Company is named in this lawsuit with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine products and/or retailers. Brand name manufactures named in the lawsuit also face claims under the state’s Unfair Practices & False Advertising acts. Likewise, the Company has also been named in a Complaint brought by the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, along with manufacturers of the national brand Zantac® and other manufacturers of ranitidine products and/or retailers. This action brings claims under the Maryland Consumer Protection Act against the brand name defendants only, as well as public nuisance and negligence for the remaining defendants. The Company was originally able to consolidate the New Mexico and Baltimore Actions to the MDL, however both actions were recently remanded to state court. The Company filed motions to dismiss in both actions. The New Mexico District Court denied the Company’s Motion to Dismiss and litigation continues. The Maryland Circuit Court has not issued a ruling on the Company’s Motion. The Company will continue to vigorously defend each of these lawsuits. On January 28, 2022 the Baltimore Circuit Court dismissed all of Plaintiffs’ claims in full against Perrigo. Plaintiffs have not sought certification to appeal the Circuit Court’s ruling. Some of the Company’s retailer customers are seeking indemnity from the Company for a portion of their defense costs and liability relating to these cases. Contingencies Accruals As a result of the matters discussed in this Note, the Company has established a loss accrual for litigation contingencies where we believe a loss to be probable and for which an amount of loss can be reasonably estimated. However, we cannot determine a reasonable estimate of the maximum possible loss or range of loss for these matters given that they are at various stages of the litigation process and each case is subject to inherent uncertainties of litigation. At July 2, 2022, the loss accrual for litigation contingencies reflected on the balance sheet in Other accrued liabilities was approximately $67.8 million. The Company also recorded an insurance recovery receivable reflected on the balance sheet in Prepaid expenses and other current assets of approximately $43.5 million related to these litigation contingencies because it believes such amount is recoverable based on communications with its insurers to date; however, the Company may erode this insurance receivable as it incurs defense costs associated with defending the matters. The Company’s management believes these accruals for contingencies are reasonable and sufficient based upon information currently available to management; however, there can be no assurance that final costs related to these contingencies will not exceed current estimates or that all of the final costs related to these contingencies will be covered by insurance. (See "Insurance Coverage Litigation," below.) In addition, we have other litigation matters pending for which we have not recorded any accruals because our potential liability for those matters is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated based on currently available information. For those matters where we have not recorded an accrual but a loss is reasonably possible, we cannot determine a reasonable estimate of the maximum possible loss or range of loss for these matters given that they are at various stages of the litigation process and each case is subject to the inherent uncertainties of litigation. Insurance Coverage Litigation In May 2021, insurers on multiple policies of D&O insurance filed an action in the High Court in Dublin against the Company and multiple current and former directors and officers of the Company seeking declaratory judgments on certain coverage issues. Those coverage issues include claims that policies for periods beginning in December 2015 and December 2016, respectively, do not have to provide coverage for the securities actions described above pending in the District of New Jersey or in Massachusetts state court concerning the events of 2015-2017. The policy for the period beginning December 2014 is currently providing coverage for those matters, and the litigation would not affect that existing coverage. However, if the plaintiffs are successful, the total amount of insurance coverage available to defend such lawsuits and to satisfy any judgment or settlement costs thereunder would be limited to one policy period. The insurers’ lawsuit also challenges coverage for Krueger derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant Perrigo Company plc v. Alford et al., a prior derivative action filed in the District of New Jersey that was dismissed in August 2020, and for the counterclaims brought in the Omega arbitration proceedings. Perrigo responded on November 1, 2021; Perrigo’s response includes its position that the policies for the periods beginning December 2015 and December 2016 provide coverage for the underlying litigation matters and seeks a ruling to that effect. The discovery stage of the case has begun. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration