XML 36 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.22.1

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | 12 Months Ended
--- | ---
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS | LEGAL PROCEEDINGS From time to time, the Company becomes involved in various legal and administrative proceedings, which include product liability, intellectual property, commercial, tax, antitrust, governmental and regulatory investigations, related private litigation and ordinary course employment-related issues. From time to time, the Company also initiates actions or files counterclaims. The Company could be subject to counterclaims or other suits in response to actions it may initiate. The Company believes that the prosecution of these actions and counterclaims is important to preserve and protect the Company, its reputation and its assets. Certain of these proceedings and actions are described below. Going forward, in the Company's subsequent Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, the Company will only include a description of these matters to the extent there has been a material update with respect thereto during the applicable quarter or to the extent otherwise required by law. On a quarterly basis, the Company evaluates developments in legal proceedings, potential settlements and other matters that could increase or decrease the amount of the liability accrued. As of December 31, 2021, the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets includes accrued current loss contingencies of $1,890 million related to matters which the Company believes a potential resolution or settlement is both probable and reasonably estimable. For all other matters, unless otherwise indicated, the Company cannot reasonably predict the outcome of these legal proceedings, nor can it estimate the amount of loss, or range of loss, if any, that may result from these proceedings. An adverse outcome in certain of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations, and could cause the market value of its common shares and/or debt securities to decline. Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries Investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts - re OraPharma In August 2019, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts, requesting materials including documents concerning the sales, marketing, coverage and reimbursement of Arestin®, including related support services, and other matters. The Company is cooperating with this investigation. The Company cannot predict the outcome or the duration of this investigation or any other legal proceedings or any enforcement actions or other remedies that may be imposed on the Company arising out of this investigation. Securities and RICO Class Actions and Related Matters U.S. Securities Litigation On December 16, 2019, the Company announced that it had agreed to settle, subject to final court approval, the consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658). On January 31, 2021, the District Court issued an order granting final approval of this settlement. On February 4, 2021, Timber Hill LLC filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s final approval order, which overruled its objections to the allocation of settlement proceeds as between common stock and options. On March 1, 2021, Cathy Lochridge filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s final approval order, which overruled her objections as to the attorneys’ fees awarded to class counsel. On October 14, 2021, Timber Hill dismissed its appeal of the final approval order. On December 20, 2021, the Third Circuit denied Lochridge’s appeal. On January 3, 2022, Lochridge filed a petition for rehearing of the appeal en banc which remains pending. In October 2015, four putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. The allegations related to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company’s relationship with Philidor. On May 31, 2016, the court entered an order consolidating the four actions under the caption In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-07658. On December 16, 2019, the Company, the current or former officers and directors, ValueAct, and the underwriters announced that they agreed to resolve the securities action for $1,210 million, subject to final court approval. This settlement received final approval from the court on January 31, 2021 and will resolve and discharge all claims against the Company in the class action. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other settling defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. The settlement remains subject to an appeal of the final court approval (as such appeal is further described above). In order to qualify for a settlement payment all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the Company securities during the class period must have submitted a proof of claim and release form by May 6, 2020. The settlement payments have been paid into an escrow account in accordance with the payment schedule outlined in the settlement agreement. These payments, less certain settlement expenses and attorneys' fees, will remain in escrow until resolution of the appeal of the final court approval of the settlement agreement. The opt-out litigations discussed below remain ongoing. As of December 31, 2021, Restricted cash and other settlement deposits includes an aggregate $1,210 million of: (i) payments in the escrow fund and (ii) certain disbursements for settlement expenses and attorney's fees. Disbursements for attorney's fees remain refundable until resolution of the appeal of the final court approval of the settlement agreement. On June 6, 2018, a putative class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This action, captioned Timber Hill LLC, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 18-cv-10246) (“Timber Hill”), asserts securities fraud claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased call options or sold put options on the Company’s common stock during the period January 4, 2013 through August 11, 2016. On June 11, 2018, this action was consolidated with In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, (Case No. 15-cv-07658). On January 14, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Timber Hill complaint. Briefing on that motion was completed on February 13, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the Timber Hill action, holding that this complaint was a legal nullity as a result of the June 11, 2018 consolidation order. In addition to the consolidated putative class action, thirty-seven groups of individual investors in the Company’s stock and debt securities have chosen to opt out of the consolidated putative class action and filed securities actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. These actions are captioned: T. Rowe Price Growth Stock Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-5034); Equity Trustees Limited as Responsible Entity for T. Rowe Price Global Equity Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6127); Principal Funds, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-6128); BloombergSen Partners Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7212); Discovery Global Citizens Master Fund, Ltd. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7321); MSD Torchlight Partners, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7324); BlueMountain Foinaven Master Fund, L.P. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7328) (“BlueMountain”); Incline Global Master LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7494); VALIC Company I v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7496); Janus Aspen Series v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 16-cv-7497) (“Janus Aspen”); Okumus Opportunistic Value Fund, LTD v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6513) (“Okumus”); Lord Abbett Investment Trust- Lord Abbett Short Duration Income Fund, v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-6365) (“Lord Abbett”); Pentwater Equity Opportunities Master Fund LTD v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. (Case No. 17-cv-7552) (“Pentwater”); Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-7625) (“Mississippi”); The Boeing Company Employee Retirement Plans Master Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc., et al., (Case No. 17-cv-7636) (“Boeing”); State Board of Administration of Florida v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-12808); The Regents of the University of California v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-13488); GMO Trust v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0089); Första AP Fonden v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 17-cv-12088); New York City Employees’ Retirement System v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0032) (“NYCERS”); Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-08705) (“Hound Partners”); Blackrock Global Allocation Fund, Inc. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0343) (“Blackrock”); Colonial First State Investments Limited As Responsible Entity for Commonwealth Global Shares Fund 1 v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0383); Bharat Ahuja v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-0846); Brahman Capital Corp. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc (Case No. 18-cv-0893); The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-01223) (“Prudential”); Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-02286) (“Senzar”); 2012 Dynasty UC LLC v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-08595) (“2012 Dynasty”); Catalyst Dynamic Alpha Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-12673) (“Catalyst”); Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co., v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-15286) (“Northwestern Mutual”); Bahaa Aly, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., (Case No. 18-cv-17393) (“Aly”); Office of the Treasurer as Trustee for the Connecticut Retirement Plans and Trust Funds v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 19-cv-18473) (“Connecticut”); Delaware Public Employees’ Retirement System v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 19-cv-18475) (“Delaware”); Maverick Neutral Levered Fund v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 20-cv-02190) (“Maverick”), Templeton v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 20-cv-05478) (“Templeton”), USAA Mutual Funds Trust, et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al., (Case No. 20-cv-07462) (“USAA”), and GIC Private Ltd. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., (Case No. 20-cv-07460) (“GIC”). Sixteen of the thirty-seven opt-out actions have been dismissed; and the total number of remaining opt-out actions pending in the District of New Jersey is twenty-one actions. These individual shareholder actions assert claims under Sections 10(b), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. Certain of these individual actions assert additional claims, including claims under Section 18 of the Exchange Act, Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and claims under the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. These claims are based on alleged purchases of Company stock, options, and/or debt at various times between January 3, 2013 and August 10, 2016. The allegations in the complaints are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the putative class action. Motions to dismiss have been filed and in most cases decided in many of these individual actions. To date, the Court has dismissed state law claims including New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, and negligent misrepresentation claims in certain cases. On January 7, 2019, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Senzar Healthcare Master Fund LP v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (Case No. 18-cv-02286) opt-out action, closing the case. On September 10, 2019, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims in the Bahaa Aly v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. (“Aly”) (Case No. 18-cv-17393) opt-out action. On October 9, 2019, the Aly Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On June 16, 2021, the Court of Appeals granted plaintiffs’ appeal in the Aly action. This action has been remanded to the District Court. On June 19, 2020, the Court entered stipulations of voluntary dismissal in the Catalyst, Mississippi, Connecticut, and Delaware actions. On July 13, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the NYCERS action. On December 30, 2020, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the BlueMountain action. On February 18, 2021, and March 10, 2021, the Court entered stipulations of voluntary dismissal in the T. Rowe, BloombergSen, Principal Funds, Pentwater, Lord Abbett, Equity Trustees, and UC Regents actions. On April 30, 2021, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Florida SBA action. On July 20, 2021, the Court entered a stipulation of voluntary dismissal in the Janus action. The Company disputes the claims against it in the remaining individual opt-out complaints and intends to defend itself vigorously. Canadian Securities Litigation In 2015, six putative class actions were filed and served against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors in Canada in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec. These actions are captioned: (a) Alladina v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-1594B6) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed November 17, 2015); (b) Kowalyshyn v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-540593-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015); (c) Kowalyshyn et al. v. Valeant, et al. (CV-15-541082-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 23, 2015); (d) O’Brien v. Valeant et al. (CV-15-543678-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed December 30, 2015); (e) Catucci v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 540-17-011743159, then Court File No. 500-06-000783-163) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 26, 2015); and (f) Rousseau-Godbout v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-06-000770-152) (Quebec Superior Court) (filed October 27, 2015). The Company is also aware of two additional putative class actions that were filed with the applicable court but which have not been served on the Company. These actions are captioned: (i) Okeley v. Valeant, et al. (Case No. S-159991) (Supreme Court of British Columbia) (filed December 2, 2015); and (ii) Sukenaga v Valeant et al. (CV-15-540567-00CP) (Ontario Superior Court) (filed November 16, 2015), and the factual allegations made in these actions are substantially similar to those outlined herein. The actions generally allege violations of Canadian provincial securities legislation on behalf of putative classes of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of the Company for periods commencing as early as January 1, 2013 and ending as late as November 16, 2015. The alleged violations relate to the same matters described in the U.S. Securities Litigation description above. Each of these putative class actions, other than the Catucci action in the Quebec Superior Court, was discontinued. In the Catucci action, on August 29, 2017, the judge granted the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their claims under the Quebec Securities Act and authorized the class proceeding. On October 26, 2017, the plaintiffs issued their Judicial Application Originating Class Proceedings. After a hearing on November 11, 2019, the court approved a settlement in the Catucci action between the class members and the Company’s auditors and the action was dismissed as against them. On August 4, 2020, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in Catucci, on behalf of the class, pursuant to which it agreed to resolve the Catucci action for the amount of CAD 94 million plus payment of an additional amount to cover notice and settlement administration costs and disbursements. As part of the settlement, the Company and the other defendants admitted no liability as to the claims against it and deny all allegations of wrongdoing. Court approval of the settlement was granted after a hearing on November 16, 2020. The Catucci action has now been dismissed against the Company, its current and former directors and officers, its underwriters and its insurers. In addition to the class proceedings described above, on April 12, 2018, the Company was served with an application for leave filed in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company and certain current or former officers and directors. This proceeding is captioned BlackRock Asset Management Canada Limited et al. v. Valeant, et al. (Court File No. 500-11-054155-185). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by plaintiffs in the Catucci class action. On June 18, 2018, the same BlackRock entities filed an originating application (Court File No. 500-17-103749-183) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. The Company is aware that certain other members of the Catucci class exercised their opt-out rights prior to the June 19, 2018 deadline. On February 15, 2019, one of the entities which exercised its opt-out rights, the California State Teachers' Retirement System (“CalSTRS”), served the Company with an application in the Quebec Superior Court of Justice for leave to pursue an action under the Quebec Securities Act against the Company, certain current or former officers and directors of the Company and its auditor. That proceeding is captioned California State Teachers’ Retirement System v. Bausch Health Companies Inc. et al. (Court File No. 500-11-055722-181). The allegations in the proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and in the BlackRock opt-out proceedings. On that same date, CalSTRS also served the Company with proceedings (Court File No. 500-17-106044-186) against the same defendants asserting claims under the Quebec Civil Code in respect of the same alleged misrepresentations. On February 3, 2020, the Quebec Superior Court granted the applications of CalSTRS and BlackRock for leave to pursue their respective actions asserting claims under the Quebec Securities Act. On June 16, 2020, the Quebec Court of Appeal granted the defendants leave to appeal that decision. The appeal was heard on September 29, 2021 and, by judgment dated October 29, 2021, the appeals were dismissed. On October 8 and 9, 2020, respectively, CalSTRS amended its proceedings to, among other things, include a new alleged misrepresentation concerning the accounting treatment of “price appreciation credits” in respect of Glumetza® during the period covered by the claims. A hearing was held on February 17, 2021 with respect to whether CalSTRS would be permitted to file the proposed amended proceedings. On June 9, 2021, the Quebec Superior Court granted the Company’s application to strike the new allegations from its Quebec Securities Act claim, but permitted the amendments to its claim under the Quebec Civil Code. On December 8, 2021, CalSTRS delivered its amended pleadings. On March 17, 2021, four additional opt-outs from the Catucci class issued a Statement of Claim in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. That proceeding is captioned The Bank of Korea et al. v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. et al. (Court File No. 21-00658966-0000). In addition, these plaintiffs also served and filed a motion for leave to pursue claims under the Ontario Securities Act. The allegations in this proceeding are similar to those made by the plaintiffs in the Catucci class action and the plaintiffs in the opt-out actions described above. The Company believes that it has viable defenses in each of these actions. In each case, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously. RICO Class Actions Between May 27, 2016 and September 16, 2016, three actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Company and various third-parties (these actions were subsequently consolidated), alleging claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) on behalf of a putative class of certain third-party payors that paid claims submitted by Philidor for certain Company-branded drugs between January 2, 2013 and November 9, 2015. The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants committed predicate acts of mail and wire fraud by submitting or causing to be submitted prescription reimbursement requests that misstated or omitted facts regarding: (1) the identity and licensing status of the dispensing pharmacy; (2) the resubmission of previously denied claims; (3) patient co-pay waivers; (4) the availability of generic alternatives; and (5) the insured’s consent to renew the prescription. The complaint further alleges that these acts constitute a pattern of racketeering or a racketeering conspiracy in violation of the RICO statute and caused plaintiffs and the putative class unspecified damages, which may be trebled under the RICO statute. On August 4, 2021, the Company executed a stipulation of settlement for this action and, on August 17, 2021, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement. On December 6, 2021 the Special Master overseeing this litigation issued a report and recommendation recommending final approval of the settlement, and on February 22, 2022 the settlement was approved by the district court. Insurance Coverage Lawsuit On December 7, 2017, the Company filed a lawsuit against its insurance companies that issued insurance policies covering claims made against the Company, its subsidiaries, and its directors and officers during two distinct policy periods, (i) 2013-14 and (ii) 2015-16. The lawsuit is currently pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. v. AIG Insurance Company of Canada, et al.; 3:18-CV-00493). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks coverage for: (i) the costs of defending and resolving claims brought by former shareholders and debtholders of Allergan, Inc. in In re Allergan, Inc. Proxy Violation Securities Litigation and Timber Hill LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P., et al. (the “Allergan Securities Litigation”) (under the 2013-2014 coverage period), and (ii) costs incurred and to be incurred in connection with the securities class actions and opt-out cases described in this section and the SEC Investigation and certain of the other investigations described under “Complete or Inactive Matters” in Note 20, “LEGAL PROCEEDINGS,” to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2020, filed with the SEC and the CSA on February 24, 2021 and under “Governmental and Regulatory Inquiries” and “Complete or Inactive Matters” in Note 21, “LEGAL PROCEEDINGS,” to the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019, filed with the SEC and the CSA on February 19, 2020 (under the 2015-2016 coverage period). On July 20, 2021, the Company entered into settlement agreements with the insurers in the 2015-2016 coverage period in which the Company agreed to resolve its claims for insurance coverage in connection with the U.S. Securities Litigation and the Canadian Securities Litigation and related opt-out litigation and related investigations matters described above. On that same day, the Company entered into settlement agreements with two of its insurers in the 2013-2014 coverage period in which the Company agreed to resolve its claims against those two insurers only for insurance coverage in connection with the Allergan Securities Litigation. As a result of all of the settlement agreements entered into with the insurers on July 20, 2021, the Company has received an aggregate sum of $213 million. The Company’s insurance claims with respect to the Allergan Securities Litigation against the remaining insurers in the 2013-2014 coverage period remain pending. Hound Partners Lawsuit In October 2018, Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP, Hound Partners Long Master, LP, and Hound Partners Concentrated Master, LP, filed a lawsuit against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law Division/Mercer County. This action is captioned Hound Partners Offshore Fund, LP et al., v. Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., et al. (No. MER-L-002185-18). This suit asserts claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Antitrust Generic Pricing Antitrust Litigation The Company's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Oceanside”), Bausch Health US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC) (“Bausch Health US”), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) (“Bausch Health Americas”) (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively, the “Company”), are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation (“MDL”) entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (MDL No. 2724, 16-MD-2724). The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws, state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix, stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits, which have been brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers, end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct purchasers, end payers, insurers, States, and various Counties, Cities, and Towns, have been consolidated into the MDL. There are also additional, separate complaints which have been consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of its subsidiaries as a defendant. There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been filed in the cases. The cases have been put in deferred status. The Company disputes the claims against it and continues to defend itself vigorously. Additionally, Bausch Health Companies Inc. and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively “the Company”) have been named as defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v. Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto, Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20). The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices, and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under federal law. The proposed class action contains similar allegations to the In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The Company disputes the claims against it and will defend itself vigorously. Glumetza State-Law Insurer Litigation On February 8, 2021, the insurer plaintiff from the federal In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (N.D. Cal.) (the “In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation”) (discussed in further detail below) filed an action asserting its indirect (state law) claims in the Superior Court of Alameda County, California against the Company and others (the “State Court Action”). The State Court Action alleges that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza® delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza® or grant any other company a license to do so. The State Court Action alleges that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza® and its generic equivalent both prior to and after generic entry. On September 20, 2021, the parties stipulated that the insurer plaintiff’s direct opt-out claims from In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, discussed below, were deemed asserted in the State Court Action. Defendants’ demurrer in the State Court Action was heard on September 22, 2021. On November 11, 2021, the court denied the motion in part and granted it in part as to certain state law claims, with leave to amend. The insurer plaintiff did not amend the complaint. Defendants’ answers were filed on February 3, 2022. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend this matter. Intellectual Property Patent Litigation/Paragraph IV Matters From time to time, the Company (and/or certain of its affiliates) is also party to certain patent infringement proceedings in the United States and Canada, including as arising from claims filed by the Company (or that the Company anticipates filing within the required time periods) in connection with Notices of Paragraph IV Certification (in the United States) and Notices of Allegation (in Canada) received from third-party generic manufacturers respecting their pending applications for generic versions of certain products sold by or on behalf of the Company, including Xifaxan® 550mg, Bryhali®, Duobrii®, Trulance®, Lumify® and Relistor® Injection in the United States, and Jublia® in Canada or other similar suits. On February 17, 2020, the Company and Alfasigma S.p.A. (“Alfasigma”) received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Norwich Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“Norwich”), in which Norwich asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book for the Company’s Xifaxan® tablets, 550 mg, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Norwich’s generic rifaximin tablets, 550 mg, for which an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) has been filed by Norwich. The Company, through its subsidiaries Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Bausch Health Ireland Limited, holds the New Drug Application for Xifaxan® and owns or exclusively licenses (from Alfasigma) these patents. On March 26, 2020, certain of the Company’s subsidiaries and Alfasigma filed suit against Norwich in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Case No. 20-cv-00430) pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Norwich of one or more claims of the Xifaxan® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of Norwich’s ANDA for rifaximin tablets, 550 mg. Xifaxan® is protected by 26 patents covering the composition of matter and the use of Xifaxan® listed in the FDA’s Approved Drug Products with Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations, or the Orange Book. A 3-day bench trial is scheduled to begin March 21, 2022. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Xifaxan® patents and will continue to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property. On July 23, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Perrigo Israel Pharmaceuticals, Ltd. (now Padagis LLC) (“Padagis”), in which Padagis asserted that certain U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA's Orange Book for Duobrii® (halobetasol propionate and tazarotine) lotion, are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Padagis’ generic lotion, for which an ANDA has been filed by Padagis. On August 28, 2020, the Company filed suit against Padagis pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Padagis of one or more claims of the Duobrii® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Padagis ANDA. On September 3, 2020, this action was consolidated with the action between the Company and Padagis described below, regarding Padagis’ ANDA for generic Bryhali® (halobetasol propionate) lotion. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Duobrii® related patents and will vigorously defend its intellectual property. On March 20, 2020, the Company received a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Padagis, in which Padagis asserted that certain U.S. patents, each of which is listed in the FDA’s Orange Book for Bryhali® (halobetasol propionate) lotion, 0.01% are either invalid, unenforceable and/or will not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of Padagis’ generic halobetasol propionate lotion, for which an ANDA has been filed by Padagis. On May 1, 2020, the Company filed suit against Padagis pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act, alleging infringement by Padagis of one or more claims of the Bryhali® Patents, thereby triggering a 30-month stay of the approval of the Padagis ANDA for halobetasol propionate lotion. On September 3, 2020, this action was consolidated with the action between the Company and Padagis described above, regarding Padagis’ ANDA for generic Duobrii® (halobetasol propionate and tazarotine) lotion. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Bryhali® Patents and intends to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property. In April 2021, the Company commenced litigation against MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (“MSN”) and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., (“Mylan”) alleging patent infringement by MSN’s and Mylan’s filing of their ANDA for generic Trulance® (plecanatide) 3mg tablets. This suit had been filed following receipt of a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from each of MSN and Mylan, in which they had each asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book for the Company’s Trulance® tablets, 3 mg, were either invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of their respective generic plecanatide tablets, 3 mg. The filing of these suits triggered a 30-month stay of the approval of the MSN and Mylan ANDAs for plecanatide tablets. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Trulance® patents and intends to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property. In September 2021, the Company commenced litigation against Slayback Pharma LLC and Slayback Pharma India LLP (together, “Slayback”) alleging patent infringement by Slayback Pharma LLC’s filing of its ANDA No. 216361, referencing Lumify® (0.025% brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution). This suit had been filed following receipt of a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Slayback Pharma LLC, in which it had asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book for the Company’s Lumify® brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution, were either invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of its generic brimonidine tartrate solution. The filing of this suit triggered a 30-month stay of the approval of the Slayback ANDA for its brimonidine tartrate solution. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Lumify® patents and intends to vigorously defend its intellectual property. On February 2, 2022 the Company commenced litigation against Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Lupin”) alleging patent infringement by Lupin’s filing of its ANDA No. 216716, referencing Lumify® (0.025% brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution). This suit had been filed following receipt of a Notice of Paragraph IV Certification from Lupin, in which it had asserted that the U.S. patents listed in the FDA's Orange Book for the Company’s Lumify® brimonidine tartrate ophthalmic solution, were either invalid, unenforceable and/or would not be infringed by the commercial manufacture, use or sale of its generic brimonidine tartrate solution. The filing of this suit triggered a 30-month stay of the approval of the Lupin ANDA for its brimonidine tartrate solution. The Company remains confident in the strength of the Lumify® patents and will continue to vigorously pursue this matter and defend its intellectual property. Jublia Patent Litigation In addition, patents covering the Company's branded pharmaceutical products may be challenged in proceedings other than court proceedings, including inter partes review (“IPR”) at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. The proceedings operate under different standards from district court proceedings, and are often completed within 18 months of institution. IPR challenges have been brought against patents covering the Company's branded pharmaceutical products. For example, following Acrux DDS’s IPR petition, the U.S. Patent and Trial Appeal Board (“PTAB”), in May 2017, instituted inter partes review for an Orange Book-listed patent covering Jublia® (U.S. Patent No. 7,214,506 (the “‘506 Patent”)) and, on June 6, 2018, issued a written determination invalidating such patent. An appeal of this decision was filed on August 7, 2018. On March 13, 2020, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed this decision and remanded the matter back to the PTAB for further proceedings. As a result of a settlement, a joint motion to terminate the proceedings was filed on November 12, 2020 and, on January 8, 2021, the PTAB granted this motion. The ‘506 Patent, therefore, remains valid and enforceable and expires in 2026. Jublia® is covered by fourteen Orange Book-listed patents owned by the Company or its licensor, which expire in the years 2028 through 2035. In August and September 2018, the Company received notices of the filing of a number of ANDAs with paragraph IV certification, and has timely filed patent infringement suits against these ANDA filers, and, in addition, the Company has also commenced certain patent infringement proceedings in Canada against four separate defendants. All cases in the U.S. regarding Jublia® have been settled. In Canada, two lawsuits remain pending against Apotex Inc. Product Liability Shower to Shower® Products Liability Litigation Since 2016, the Company has been named in a number of product liability lawsuits involving the Shower to Shower® body powder product acquired in September 2012 from Johnson & Johnson; due to dismissals, twenty-nine (29) of such product liability suits currently remain pending. Potential liability (including its attorneys’ fees and costs) arising out of these remaining suits is subject to full indemnification obligations of Johnson & Johnson owed to the Company and its affiliates, and legal fees and costs will be paid by Johnson & Johnson. Twenty-eight (28) of these lawsuits filed by individual plaintiffs allege that the use of Shower to Shower® caused the plaintiffs to develop ovarian cancer, mesothelioma or breast cancer. The allegations in these cases include failure to warn, design defect, manufacturing defect, negligence, gross negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, civil conspiracy concert in action, negligent misrepresentation, wrongful death, loss of consortium and/or punitive damages. The damages sought include compensatory damages, including medical expenses, lost wages or earning capacity, loss of consortium and/or compensation for pain and suffering, mental anguish anxiety and discomfort, physical impairment and loss of enjoyment of life. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment interest, exemplary and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Additionally, two proposed class actions have been filed in Canada against the Company and various Johnson & Johnson entities (one in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and one in the Superior Court of Quebec), on behalf of persons who have purchased or used Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder or Shower to Shower®. The class actions allege the use of the product increases certain health risks (British Columbia) or negligence in failing to properly test, failing to warn of health risks, and failing to remove the products from the market in a timely manner (Quebec). The plaintiffs in these actions are seeking awards of general, special, compensatory and punitive damages. On November 17, 2020, the British Columbia court issued a judgment declining to certify a class as to the Company or Shower to Shower®, and at this time no appeal of that judgment has been filed. On December 16, 2021, the plaintiff in the British Columbia class action filed a Second Amended Notice of Civil Claim and Application for Certification, removing the Company as a defendant; as a result, the British Columbia class action is concluded as to the Company. Johnson & Johnson, through one or more subsidiaries has purported to have completed a Texas divisional merger with respect to any talc liabilities at Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. (“JJCI”). LTL Management, LLC (“LTL”), the resulting entity of the divisional merger, assumed JJCI’s talc liabilities and thereafter filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Pursuant to a court order, the case was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Notwithstanding the divisional merger and LTL’s bankruptcy case, the Company and its affiliates continue to have indemnification claims and rights against Johnson & Johnson and LTL pursuant to the terms of the indemnification agreement entered into between JJCI and its affiliates and the Company and its affiliates, which indemnification agreement remains in effect. As a result, it is the Company's current expectation that it will not incur any material impairments with respect to its indemnification claims as a result of the divisional merger or the bankruptcy. Substantially all cases subject to the indemnification agreement related to Johnson & Johnson’s talc liability are stayed through February 28, 2022, pursuant to a preliminary injunction issued by the bankruptcy court. Motions to dismiss the LTL bankruptcy, as well as extend the stay beyond February 28, 2022, were argued in the bankruptcy court in February 2022. A decision of the court is pending. To the extent that any cases subject to the indemnification agreement proceed during the pendency of the bankruptcy case, it is the Company's expectation that Johnson & Johnson, in accordance with the indemnification agreement, will continue to vigorously defend the Company in each of the remaining actions. General Civil Actions California Proposition 65 Related Matter On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson & Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No. 37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act. This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, where it is currently pending. Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief, and reimbursement/restitution. The Company filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims, which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice. In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June 2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further, which was granted. In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint. On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief; Appellees' response briefs were filed on October 8, 2021. This matter was stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021, due to the preliminary injunction entered by the bankruptcy court in the LTL bankruptcy proceeding. This stay included Appellants’ reply brief deadline, which was previously due to be filed on or before December 2, 2021. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. New Mexico Attorney General Consumer Protection Action The Company and Bausch Health US were named in an action brought by State of New Mexico ex rel. Hector H. Balderas, Attorney General of New Mexico, in the County of Santa Fe New Mexico First Judicial District Court (New Mexico ex rel. Balderas v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Civil Action No. D-101-CV-2020-00013, filed on January 2, 2020), alleging consumer protection claims against Johnson & Johnson and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., the Company and Bausch Health US related to Shower to Shower® and its alleged causal link to mesothelioma and other cancers. In April 2020, Bausch Health US filed a motion to dismiss, which in September 2020, the Court granted in part as to the New Mexico Medicaid Fraud Act and New Mexico Fraud Against Taxpayers Act claims and denied as to all other claims. The State of New Mexico brings claims against all defendants under the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act and other common law and equitable causes of action, alleging defendants engaged in wrongful marketing, sale and promotion of talcum powder products. The lawsuit seeks to recover the cost of the talcum powder products as well as the cost of treating asbestos-related cancers allegedly caused by those products. Bausch Health US filed its answer on November 16, 2020. On December 30, 2020 Johnson & Johnson filed a Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and on January 4, 2021, Bausch Health US filed a joinder to that motion, which was denied on March 8, 2021. Trial is scheduled to begin on January 18, 2023. The Company and Bausch Health US dispute the claims against them and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Doctors Allergy Formula Lawsuit In April 2018, Doctors Allergy Formula, LLC (“Doctors Allergy”), filed a lawsuit against Bausch Health Americas in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, asserting breach of contract and related claims under a 2015 Asset Purchase Agreement, which purports to include milestone payments that Doctors Allergy alleges should have been paid by Bausch Health Americas. Doctors Allergy claims its damages are not less than $23 million. Bausch Health Americas has asserted counterclaims against Doctors Allergy. Bausch Health Americas filed a motion seeking an order granting Bausch Health Americas summary judgment on its counterclaims against Plaintiff and dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against it. The motion was fully briefed as of May 2021. The Court held a hearing on the motion on January 25, 2022. The motion remains pending. Bausch Health Americas disputes the claims against it and will continue to defend itself vigorously. Litigation with Former Salix CEO On January 28, 2019, former Salix Ltd. CEO and director Carolyn Logan filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery, Case No. 2019-0059, asserting claims for breach of contract and declaratory relief. On November 19, 2021, Logan amended her complaint to add a claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The lawsuit arises out of the contractual termination of approximately $30 million in unvested equity awards following the determination by the Salix Ltd. Board of Directors that Logan intentionally engaged in wrongdoing that resulted, or would reasonably be expected to result, in material harm to Salix Ltd., or to the business or reputation of Salix Ltd. Logan seeks the restoration of the unvested equity awards and a declaration regarding certain rights related to indemnification. On June 19, 2019, the Court entered an order staying the claim for declaratory relief pending the final resolution of the breach of contract claim. Trial is scheduled to commence on September 6, 2022. The Company disputes the claims and intends to vigorously defend the matter. Completed or Inactive Matters The following matters have concluded, have settled, are the subject of an agreement to settle or have otherwise been closed since January 1, 2021, have been inactive from the Company’s perspective for several quarters or the Company anticipates that no further material activity will take place with respect thereto. Due to the closure, settlement, inactivity or change in status of the matters referenced below, these matters will no longer appear in the Company's next public reports and disclosures, unless required. With respect to inactive matters, to the extent material activity takes place in subsequent quarters with respect thereto, the Company will provide updates as required or as deemed appropriate. Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Between August 2019 and July 2020, eight (8) putative antitrust class actions and four (4) non-class complaints naming Bausch Health Companies Inc., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Ltd., Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Santarus, Inc. (for purposes of this subsection, collectively, the “Company”), among other defendants, were filed or transferred to the Northern District of California. Three (3) of the class actions were filed by plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of direct purchasers. The purported classes of direct purchasers filed a consolidated first amended complaint and a motion for class certification in April 2020. The court certified a direct purchaser class in August 2020. The putative class action complaints filed by end payer purchasers have all been voluntarily dismissed. Three (3) of the non-class complaints were filed by direct purchasers. The fourth non-class complaint, asserting claims based on both direct and indirect purchases, was filed by an insurer plaintiff in July 2020 and subsequently amended in September 2020. In December 2020, the court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss as to the insurer plaintiff’s direct claims but dismissed the insurer plaintiff’s indirect claims. On February 2, 2021, the insurer plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint was denied. These actions were consolidated and coordinated in In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-cv-05822-WHA (N.D. Cal.) (the “In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation”). The lawsuits alleged that a 2012 settlement of a patent litigation regarding Glumetza® delayed generic entry in exchange for an agreement not to launch an authorized generic of Glumetza® or grant any other company a license to do so. The complaints alleged that the settlement agreement resulted in higher prices for Glumetza® and its generic equivalent both prior to and after generic entry. Both the class and non-class plaintiffs sought damages under federal antitrust laws for claims based on direct purchases. On July 26, 2021, the Company reached an agreement in principle and, thereafter, on September 14, 2021, executed a final settlement agreement to resolve the class plaintiffs’ claims for $300 million, subject to court approval. On August 1, 2021, the Company also reached an agreement in principle to resolve the non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims, described above, for additional consideration. A final settlement agreement with the non-class direct purchaser plaintiffs was executed on August 6, 2021. As part of the settlements, the Company admitted no liability as to the claims against it and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. On September 20, 2021, the insurer plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its claims in the consolidated federal action. By stipulation, the insurer plaintiff has asserted its direct opt-out claims in the State Court Action, resulting in the consolidation of all of its opt-out claims in the State Court Action. On September 22, 2021, the court granted preliminary approval of the class settlement agreement and vacated the October 2021 trial date and all other pre-trial deadlines in the consolidated actions. On February 3, 2022, the court granted final approval of the class settlement and ordered dismissal of the class plaintiffs' claims. Subject to appeal of the final approval of the class settlement, the settlements will resolve and discharge all asserted class and direct purchaser non-class claims against the Company in the In re Glumetza Antitrust Litigation. California Proposition 65 Related Matter On January 29, 2020, Plaintiff Jan Graham filed a lawsuit (Graham v. Bausch Health Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 20STCV03578) in Los Angeles County Superior Court against the Company, Bausch Health US and several other manufacturers, distributors and retailers of talcum powder products, alleging violations of California Proposition 65 by manufacturing and distributing talcum powder products containing chemicals listed under the statue, without a compliant warning on the label. On January 29, 2021, certain defendants including the Company and Bausch Health US filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication, which was granted with prejudice on May 26, 2021; Plaintiff waived the right to appeal. Derivative Lawsuits On September 10, 2019 and September 13, 2019, two alleged stockholders filed derivative lawsuits purportedly on behalf of the Company against former Company board members and executives. On March 7, 2020, a consolidated amended derivative complaint was filed, captioned In re Bausch Health Companies Inc. F/K/A/ Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Stockholder Derivative Litigation (Case No. 19-cv-17833). Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment related to, among other things, allegedly false and misleading statements and/or failures to disclose information about the Company’s business and prospects, including relating to drug pricing, the Company’s use of specialty pharmacies, and the Company’s relationship with Philidor. The consolidated complaint also asserted a claim for contribution and indemnification by the Defendants for any liability the Company ultimately faces as a result of the conduct alleged in the complaint. The claims alleged in these cases were based on the same purported conduct that is at issue in In re Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc. Securities Litigation, all of which occurred prior to 2017. On April 21, 2020, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint. Briefing on this motion concluded on August 3, 2020. On November 24, 2020, the Special Master appointed by the Court issued a report recommending that the motion to dismiss be granted in full. On September 20, 2021, the District Court adopted the report and recommendation of the Special Master and dismissed the action.

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 legal proceedings, legal contingencies, litigation, regulatory and environmental matters and other contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_LegalMattersAndContingenciesTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration