COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES COMMITMENTS Jubilant HollisterStier Manufacturing and Supply Agreement In connection with the Company’s merger with Zyla Life Sciences (“Zyla”) in May 2020 (the “Zyla Merger”), the Company assumed a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement”) with Jubilant HollisterStier LLC (“JHS”) pursuant to which the Company engaged JHS to provide certain services related to the manufacture and supply of SPRIX for the Company’s commercial use. Under the Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement, JHS is responsible for supplying a minimum of 75% of the Company’s annual requirements of SPRIX. The Company agreed to purchase a minimum number of batches of SPRIX per calendar year from JHS over the term of the Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement. In February 2025, the Company amended the Jubilant HollisterStier Agreement to reduce the minimum number of batches of SPRIX required to be purchased for calendar years 2024 and 2025. Commitments to JHS for 2024 and 2025 pursuant to the amendment are approximately $1.9 million in total. Antares Supply Agreement In connection with the Otrexup acquisition, the Company entered into a supply agreement with Antares Pharma, Inc. (“Antares”) pursuant to which Antares will manufacture and supply the finished Otrexup products (the “Antares Supply Agreement”). Under the Antares Supply Agreement, the Company has agreed to annual minimum purchase obligations from Antares, which are approximately $2.1 million annually. The Antares Supply Agreement has an initial term through December 2031 and can be renewed thereafter. As noted in Note 2. Divestitures and Strategic Transactions, the Company ceased commercialization of Otrexup beginning in July 2025. The Antares Supply Agreement has termination provisions. Amounts due upon termination are only payable if the Antares Supply Agreement is formally terminated by written notice. As of August 11, 2025, the Company has not provided such notice and therefore no termination liability has been recognized. However, failure to meet minimum purchase obligations under the Antares Supply Agreement may constitute default and could lead to potential litigation or settlement obligations, which are currently estimated to be between $0.8 million and $1.0 million. An accrual of $0.8 million was accrued in accordance with ASC 450-20-25 as of June 30, 2025. Hanmi Supply Agreement In connection with the Spectrum Merger, the Company assumed a Manufacturing and Supply Agreement (the “Hanmi Agreement”) with Hanmi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. (“Hanmi”) pursuant to which the Company engaged Hanmi to provide certain services related to the manufacture and supply of ROLVEDON for the Company’s commercial use. The Company has agreed to purchase a minimum number of batches totaling approximately $19.1 million in 2024 and $3.8 million in 2025. The Company has met its purchase commitment from Hanmi for 2025 and does not have any additional purchase obligations with Hanmi. CONTINGENCIES General The Company is currently involved in various lawsuits, claims, investigations and other legal proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business. The Company continues to monitor each matter and adjust accruals as warranted based on new information and further developments in accordance with ASC 450-20-25. Other than the matters disclosed below, the Company may from time to time become party to actions, claims, suits, investigations or proceedings arising from the ordinary course of its business, including actions with respect to intellectual property claims, breach of contract claims, labor and employment claims and other matters. Although actions, claims, suits, investigations and proceedings are inherently uncertain and their results cannot be predicted with certainty, other than the matters set forth below, the Company is not currently involved in any matters that the Company believes may have a material adverse effect on its business, results of operations, cash flows or financial condition. However, regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on the Company because of associated cost and diversion of management time. Stockholder Actions Shapiro v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169. On January 5, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former executive officers made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts regarding the likely impact of INDOCIN sales and the Spectrum Merger on Assertio’s profitability (the “Shapiro class action”). On April 11, 2024, the court appointed Continental General Insurance Company as the lead plaintiff. The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on June 10, 2024, that names as defendants Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and directors, and Spectrum and certain of its former officers and directors. It alleges violations of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”) between March 9, 2023 and January 3, 2024, and violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the proxy statement issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the court. The defendants filed their motion to dismiss on August 9, 2024; the plaintiff filed its opposition brief on October 10, 2024; and the defendants filed their reply brief on November 14, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. In re Assertio Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation, U.S. District Court, Delaware, Case No. 1:24-cv-00383-UNA. Two putative stockholder derivative actions (Jung v. Peisert, et al., U.S. District Court, Delaware, Case No. 1:24-cv-00383-UNA, filed on March 26, 2024, and Hollin v. Mason, et al., U.S. District Court, Delaware, Case No. 1:24-cv-00785-UNA, filed on July 3, 2024) were filed against the Company (as a nominal defendant) and certain of its current and former executive officers and directors. The stockholder derivative complaints allege, inter alia, that (1) certain of the Company’s current and former executive officers and directors are liable to the Company, pursuant to Section 10(b) and 21(d) of the Exchange Act for contribution and indemnification, relating to the same underlying claims as the Shapiro class action, (2) certain of the Company’s current and former officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties, and committed acts of gross mismanagement, abuse of control, or were unjustly enriched, and (3) certain of the Company’s directors negligently violated Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, by allegedly causing such false or misleading statements to be issued and/or failing to disclose material facts about such matters. The plaintiffs generally seek corporate reforms, damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. On September 5, 2024, the court consolidated the two stockholder derivative actions under the caption In re Assertio Holdings, Inc. Derivative Litigation. On November 4, 2024, the parties filed a stipulation agreeing to stay the consolidated action pending proceedings in the Shapiro class action. On November 5, 2024, the Court entered an order staying the consolidated action pursuant to the parties’ stipulation. Jung v. Lebel, et al., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2024-0821 and Jung v. Turgeon, et al., Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, Case No. 2024-0822. On August 5, 2024, alleged former Spectrum stockholder and current Assertio stockholder Jung (the same plaintiff who previously filed Jung v. Peisert, et. al., in Delaware federal court, as discussed above) filed two stockholder derivative complaints in the Delaware Chancery Court against certain former Spectrum officers and directors and naming both Assertio and Spectrum as nominal defendants. The complaints are, respectively, largely duplicative of the allegations in (1) the ongoing Christiansen shareholder class action in the Southern District of New York (discussed below), and (2) the ongoing Luo shareholder class action in the District of Nevada (discussed below). Jung previously raised these allegations in demand letters to Assertio’s Board, demanding that the Board take legal action against the individuals now named in these complaints. In response to Jung’s demand letters, the Board retained independent counsel, considered Jung’s demands, and provided a substantive response explaining the Board’s reasons for denying Jung’s demands. These complaints now allege that the Board wrongfully refused his demands. The individual defendants have not yet been served with either complaint. Assertio and Spectrum have been served with and moved to dismiss both complaints. Briefing schedules on the motions to dismiss have not been set. Luo v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., U.S. District Court, District of Nevada, Case No. 2:21-cv-01612. On August 31, 2021, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by a purported shareholder, alleging that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers and directors made false or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about Spectrum’s business and the prospects of approval for its Biologic License Application (“BLA”) to the FDA for ROLVEDON in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. On July 28, 2022, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and counsel for the putative class. On September 26, 2022, an amended complaint was filed alleging, inter alia, false and misleading statements with respect to ROLVEDON manufacturing operations and controls and adding allegations that defendants misled investors about the efficacy of, clinical trial data and market need for poziotinib during a Class Period of March 7, 2018 to August 5, 2021. The amended complaint seeks damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the Court. On October 7, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Some of the claims were dismissed with prejudice, and some claims plaintiffs were permitted to replead. On April 10, 2025, the parties provided a joint notice to the court that they reached an agreement in principle to settle this matter, and on May 9, 2025, the parties submitted formal settlement papers to the court for preliminary approval. As identified in the settlement papers submitted to the Court, the parties agreed to a settlement of $16.0 million, of which the Company was responsible for paying approximately $2.7 million, with insurance covering the remainder. As discussed in Note 4. Supplemental Balance Sheet Details, during the second quarter of 2025, the $16.0 million liability was recorded in Accrued liabilities, while the $13.3 million insurance receivable was recorded in Prepaid and other current assets, in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. In June 2025, the Court entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement, and thereafter in July 2025, the Company and the insurers funded an escrow account with the settlement proceeds. The Court will consider whether to grant final approval of the settlement at a hearing scheduled to take place on October 20, 2025. Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292. On December 5, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “New York Action”). Three additional related putative securities class action lawsuits were subsequently filed by Spectrum shareholders against Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York: Osorio-Franco v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10292 (filed December 5, 2022); Cummings v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-10677 (filed December 19, 2022); and Carneiro v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00767 (filed January 30, 2023). These three additional New York lawsuits allege that Spectrum and certain of its former executive officers made false or misleading statements about, inter alia, the safety and efficacy of and clinical trial data for poziotinib in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and seek remedies including damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as may be determined by the court. The court consolidated the three additional New York lawsuits and entered an order designating Steven Christiansen as the lead plaintiff. Lead plaintiff Christiansen filed an amended consolidated complaint in the New York Action under the caption Christiansen v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc, et al., on May 30, 2023, alleging a Class Period between March 17, 2022 and September 2022. On January 23, 2024, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to five of the challenged statements but denied the motion to dismiss as to two specific statements. On October 25, 2024, a Spectrum stockholder (Ayoub) filed a substantially similar putative securities class action complaint asserting the same claims against the same defendants on behalf of the same alleged class as the New York Action. On October 30, 2024, Christiansen and Ayoub jointly moved for class certification and for appointment as class representatives in the New York Action. On November 4, 2024, defendants moved to disqualify Christiansen from serving as lead plaintiff and for a stay of proceedings pending appointment of a substitute lead plaintiff. On November 6, 2024, the court entered an order staying both cases pending resolution of the defendants’ motion to disqualify Mr. Christiansen as lead plaintiff. On August 4, 2025, the court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to disqualify Christiansen from serving as lead plaintiff and reopening the lead plaintiff appointment process with applications to serve as substitute lead plaintiff due by September 24, 2025. The case otherwise remains stayed. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Enyart v. Assertio Holdings, Inc., et. al. In the Circuit Court of the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Illinois, Case No. 2024LA00000842. On November 8, 2024, this putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by an alleged former Spectrum shareholder who received Assertio shares in the Spectrum Merger, alleging that Assertio and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the registration statement for the Assertio shares issued in connection with the Spectrum Merger. In general terms, the complaint alleges that the registration statement contained misrepresentations and omissions related to the value of adding ROLVEDON to Assertio’s portfolio of products and the risk to Assertio’s business from potential generic competition to INDOCIN. The complaint seeks compensatory damages, rescission or a recessionary measure of damages, interest, costs, attorneys’ fees, expert witness fees, and other unspecified equitable relief. On February 21, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. On June 24, 2025, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, while granting leave to re-plead with respect to certain claims. On July 18, 2025, Enyart filed an amended complaint. The Court has not yet set a schedule for the defendants’ response to the amended complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Assertio Therapeutics Opioid Litigation and Related Matters As noted in Note 2. Divestitures and Strategic Transactions, on May 9, 2025, the Company transferred all of the equity interests in Assertio Therapeutics to ATIH Industries, LLC. As a result of that divestiture, neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries are defendants in any opioid-related litigation, including the opioid-related matters described in “Note 8. Commitments and Contingencies” of the Notes to the consolidated financial statements included in Part II, Item 8 of the Company’s 2024 Form 10-K. Settled Assertio Therapeutics Litigation Matters The below matters are litigation matters that Assertio Therapeutics historically had been involved in and which were settled prior to the Therapeutics Transaction described in Note 2. Divestitures and Strategic Transactions. Glumetza Antitrust Litigation Direct purchaser antitrust class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and several other defendants relating to the Company’s former drug Glumetza®. On February 3, 2022, the U.S District Court for the Northern District of California issued its final order approving a settlement of the direct purchaser class plaintiffs’ claims against the Company in return for $3.85 million. Humana Inc. (“Humana”) was initially a plaintiff in the direct purchaser class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, but withdrew its claims and filed claims under state law against the Company and the same defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda (“California Superior Court of Alameda”) in February 2021. Health Care Service Corporation (“HCSC”) filed a similar complaint in the California Superior Court of Alameda in April 2022. These antitrust cases arise out of a Settlement and License Agreement (the “Settlement”) that the Company, Santarus, Inc. (“Santarus”) and Lupin Limited (“Lupin”) entered into in February 2012 to resolve patent infringement litigation filed by the Company against Lupin regarding Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application for generic 500 mg and 1000 mg tablets of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the Settlement violated the antitrust laws because it included a “reverse payment” in the form of an alleged agreement not to launch an authorized generic version of Glumetza for a certain period that caused Lupin to delay market entry of its generic version of Glumetza. The antitrust plaintiffs allege that the defendants, which include Lupin as well as Bausch Health (the alleged successor in interest to Santarus), are liable for damages under the antitrust laws for overcharges that the antitrust plaintiffs allege they paid when they purchased the branded version of Glumetza due to delayed generic entry. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for alleged past harm, attorneys’ fees and costs. During the third quarter of 2024, the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the claims asserted by Humana and HCSC in the California state court lawsuits, the terms of which are confidential. A liability was recorded for the agreement in principle, which did not have a material impact to the Company’s condensed consolidated financial statements and was paid in full during the second quarter of 2025. The parties executed a final settlement agreement in April 2025, and the California state court actions were dismissed in June 2025. Qui Tam Litigation On October 30, 2017, a qui tam lawsuit was filed against Depomed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (United States of America ex rel. Webb, et al. v. Depomed, Inc., Case No. 1:17-cv-02309-JDB). The case was filed under seal and remained under seal until after an order was entered by the district court on July 12, 2024, which followed a notice from DOJ electing to intervene, in part, and declining to intervene, in part, and which granted DOJ’s request to unseal the complaint, DOJ’s notice concerning intervention, and DOJ’s proposed order concerning its intervention. The district court order gave DOJ and the relators until October 10, 2024, to serve their respective complaints on Depomed. The relators’ complaint alleged that Depomed violated the federal False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729, as well as similar laws in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and the District of Columbia; the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7(b)(2)(B); the United States Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §§ 331(d), 355(a); and laws in California and Illinois concerning fraudulent insurance claims. The relators’ complaint generally alleged that Depomed marketed off-label uses for its drugs Gralise and Lazanda, which were divested in 2020 and 2017, respectively, and that Depomed paid illegal kickbacks to physicians to induce them to write Gralise and Lazanda prescriptions. The relators also alleged that Depomed retaliated against them for complaining about Depomed’s alleged unlawful conduct. On behalf of themselves, the United States, the several states whose laws the Complaint alleges to have been violated, and certain unnamed insurance companies, the relators sought, among other things, actual damages, treble damages, back pay, two times back pay, special damages, civil penalties, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses. DOJ filed its notice of intervention on July 3, 2024, stating that the United States was intervening on the allegations that Depomed knowingly marketed Lazanda in a manner that caused the submission of false claims for Lazanda to Medicare and TRICARE. DOJ noted that the United States declined to intervene on all other allegations not related to Lazanda. Therefore, DOJ declined to intervene with respect to the relators’ allegations concerning Gralise. DOJ stated that it would file its complaint in intervention within 90 days of its notice. Settlement negotiations thereafter ensued, and on May 8, 2025, Assertio Therapeutics, DOJ, and the relators entered into a final settlement, pursuant to which the relators and DOJ stipulated to the dismissal of all claims against Assertio Therapeutics with the Company continuing to deny all wrongdoing in connection with these matters. A liability to DOJ of $3.6 million for this settlement agreement was originally recognized in the fourth quarter of 2024, and was paid on May 8, 2025.