Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 16 – Commitments and Contingencies: General From time to time, Teva and/or its subsidiaries are subject to claims for damages and/or equitable relief arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as described below, in large part as a result of the nature of its business, Teva is frequently subject to litigation. Teva generally believes that it has meritorious defenses to the actions brought against it and vigorously pursues the defense or settlement of each such action. Except as described below, Teva does not currently have a reasonable basis to estimate the loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible with respect to matters disclosed in this note. Teva records a provision in its financial statements to the extent that it concludes that a contingent liability is probable and the amount thereof is estimable. Based upon the status of the cases described below, management’s assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of counsel, no provisions have been made regarding the matters disclosed in this note, except as noted below. Litigation outcomes and contingencies are unpredictable, and excessive verdicts can occur. Accordingly, management’s assessments involve complex judgments about future events and often rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Teva continuously reviews the matters described below and may, from time to time, remove previously disclosed matters that the Company has determined no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure. If one or more of such proceedings described below were to result in final judgments against Teva, such judgments could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. In addition, Teva incurs significant legal fees and related expenses in the course of defending its positions even if the facts and circumstances of a particular litigation do not give rise to a provision in the financial statements. In connection with third-party agreements, Teva may under certain circumstances be required to indemnify, and may be indemnified by, in unspecified amounts, the parties to such agreements against third-party claims. Among other things, Teva’s agreements with third parties may require Teva to indemnify them, or require them to indemnify Teva, for the costs and damages incurred in connection with product liability claims, in specified or unspecified amounts. Except as otherwise noted, all of the litigation matters disclosed below involve claims arising in the United States. Except as otherwise noted, all third party sales figures given below are based on IQVIA (formerly IMS Health Inc.) data. Intellectual Property Litigation From time to time, Teva seeks to develop generic versions of patent-protected pharmaceuticals for sale prior to patent expiration in various markets. In the United States, to obtain approval for most generics prior to the expiration of the originator’s patents, Teva must challenge the patents under the procedures set forth in the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, as amended. To the extent that Teva seeks to utilize such patent challenge procedures, Teva is and expects to be involved in patent litigation regarding the validity, enforceability or infringement of the originator’s patents. Teva may also be involved in patent litigation involving the extent to which its product or manufacturing process techniques may infringe other originator or third-party patents. Additionally, depending upon a complex analysis of a variety of legal and commercial factors, Teva may, in certain circumstances, elect to market a generic version even though litigation is still pending. To the extent Teva elects to proceed in this manner, it could face substantial liability for patent infringement if the final court decision is adverse to Teva, which could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. The general rule for damages in patent infringement cases in the United States is that the patentee should be compensated by no less than a reasonable royalty, and it may also be able in certain circumstances to be compensated for its lost profits. The amount of a reasonable royalty award would generally be calculated based on the sales of Teva’s product. The amount of lost profits would generally be based on the lost sales of the patentee’s product. In addition, the patentee may seek consequential damages as well as enhanced damages of up to three times the profits lost by the patent holder for willful infringement, although courts have typically awarded much lower multiples. Teva is also involved in litigation regarding patents in other countries where it does business, particularly in Europe, where Teva has in recent years increased the number of launches of its generic versions of branded pharmaceuticals prior to the expiration of the innovator’s patents. The laws concerning generic pharmaceuticals and patents differ from country to country. Damages for patent infringement in Europe may include lost profits or a reasonable royalty, but enhanced damages for willful infringement are generally not available. In July 2014, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) sued Teva in Delaware federal court for infringement of a patent expiring in June 2015 directed to using carvedilol in a specified manner to decrease the risk of mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Teva and eight other generic producers began selling their carvedilol tablets (the generic version of GSK’s Coreg^®) in September 2007. Teva vigorously disputed GSK’s claims on the merits and also disputed the amount and nature of GSK’s alleged damages. A jury trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in GSK’s favor finding Teva liable for induced infringement, including willful infringement, and assessing damages of $235.5 million, not including pre- or post-judgment interest. Teva filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law asking the court to overturn the jury verdict on inducement, invalidity, and the award of lost profits damages, and GSK filed post-trial motions asking the court to increase the damages amount in light of the willful infringement finding and to set the interest rate(s) to be applied to the total damages amount. On March 28, 2018, the District Court issued an opinion overturning the jury verdict and instead found no induced infringement by Teva, thereby finding that Teva did not owe any damages. The District Court denied Teva’s motion seeking to overturn the jury verdict with respect to invalidity and denied GSK’s motion seeking to increase the damages award. GSK can appeal this decision. If the appeal of the District Court’s decision is decided against Teva, the case would be remanded to the District Court for it to consider Teva’s other legal and equitable defenses that have not yet been considered by the District Court. The provision that was included in the financial statements for this matter has been reversed as the exposure is no longer considered probable. In 2014, Teva Canada succeeded in its challenge of the bortezomib (the generic equivalent of Velcade^®) product and mannitol ester patents under the Patented Medicines (Notice Of Compliance) Regulations (“PM(NOC)”). Teva commenced sales in the first quarter of 2015. At the time of Teva’s launch, annual sales of Velcade were approximately 94 million Canadian dollars. Teva commenced an action under Section 8 of PM(NOC) to recover damages for being kept off of the market during the PM(NOC) proceedings. Janssen and Millennium filed a counterclaim for infringement of the same two patents as well as a patent covering a process to prepare bortezomib. The product patent expired in October 2015; the other patents expire in January 2022 and March 2025. On December 20, 2017, Teva entered into an agreement with Janssen and Millenium which limits the damages payable by either party depending on the outcome of the infringement/impeachment action. As a result, the most Janssen and Millenium could recover is 200 million Canadian dollars (approximately $159 million) plus post-judgment interest. The trial, which is limited to the issue of patent validity and infringement, began on January 29, 2018 and concluded on March 8, 2018. The court has not yet issued any decision. In addition to the potential damages that could be awarded, if Janssen and Millenium ultimately were successful in their allegations of patent infringement, Teva could be enjoined from further sales of its bortezomib product. Product Liability Litigation Teva’s business inherently exposes it to potential product liability claims. Teva maintains a program of insurance, which may include commercial insurance, self-insurance (including direct risk retention), or a combination of both approaches, in amounts and on terms that it believes are reasonable and prudent in light of its business and related risks. However, Teva sells, and will continue to sell, pharmaceuticals that are not covered by its product liability insurance; in addition, it may be subject to claims for which insurance coverage is denied as well as claims that exceed its policy limits. Product liability coverage for pharmaceutical companies is becoming more expensive and increasingly difficult to obtain. As a result, Teva may not be able to obtain the type and amount of commercial insurance it desires, or any commercial insurance on reasonable terms, in all of its markets. Competition Matters As part of its generic pharmaceuticals business, Teva has challenged a number of patents covering branded pharmaceuticals, some of which are among the most widely-prescribed and well-known drugs on the market. Many of Teva’s patent challenges have resulted in litigation relating to Teva’s attempts to market generic versions of such pharmaceuticals under the federal Hatch-Waxman Act. Some of this litigation has been resolved through settlement agreements in which Teva obtained a license to market a generic version of the drug, often years before the patents expire. Teva and its subsidiaries have increasingly been named as defendants in cases that allege antitrust violations arising from such settlement agreements. The plaintiffs in these cases, which are usually direct and indirect purchasers of pharmaceutical products, and often assert claims on behalf of classes of all direct and indirect purchasers, typically allege that (1) Teva received something of value from the innovator in exchange for an agreement to delay generic entry, and (2) significant savings could have been realized if there had been no settlement agreement and generic competition had commenced earlier. These class action cases seek various forms of injunctive and monetary relief, including damages based on the difference between the brand price and what the generic price allegedly would have been and disgorgement of profits, which are automatically trebled under the relevant statutes, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The alleged damages generally depend on the size of the branded market and the length of the alleged delay, and can be substantial – potentially measured in multiples of the annual brand sales – particularly where the alleged delays are lengthy or branded drugs with annual sales in the billions of dollars are involved. Teva believes that its settlement agreements are lawful and serve to increase competition, and has defended them vigorously. In Teva’s experience to date, these cases have typically settled for a fraction of the high end of the damages sought, although there can be no assurance that such outcomes will continue. In June 2013, the United States Supreme Court held, in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. (the “AndroGel case”), that a rule of reason test should be applied in analyzing whether such settlements potentially violate the federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court held that a trial court must analyze each agreement in its entirety in order to determine whether it violates the antitrust laws. This new test has resulted in increased scrutiny of Teva’s patent settlements, additional action by the FTC and state and local authorities, and an increased risk of liability in Teva’s currently pending antitrust litigations. In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case alleges that the settlement agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a Teva subsidiary (“Cephalon”), and various generic pharmaceutical companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as PROVIGIL^®) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding generic competition. The case also alleges that Cephalon improperly asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic pharmaceutical companies. The first lawsuit was brought by King Drug Company of Florence, Inc. on behalf of itself and as a proposed class action on behalf of any other person or entity that purchased PROVIGIL directly from Cephalon (the “Direct Purchaser Class”). Similar allegations were made in other complaints, including those filed on behalf of a proposed class of end payers of PROVIGIL (the “End Payer Class”), by certain individual end payers, by certain retail chain pharmacies and by Apotex, Inc. (collectively, these cases are referred to as the “Philadelphia Modafinil Action”). Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon’s PROVIGIL patent, and in October 2011, the Court found the patent to be invalid and unenforceable based on inequitable conduct. This decision was affirmed on appeal in April 2013. Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to settle with all of the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Modafinil Action. However, one of the end payers, United Healthcare Services, took the position that it is not bound by the settlement that was agreed to on its behalf and brought a separate action in Minnesota federal court, which has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Teva has also filed suit to enforce the settlement. A bench trial in the suit to enforce the settlement commenced on April 23, 2018 and concluded on April 27, 2018. The court ordered post-trial briefing to be submitted within 45 days and has not yet issued any decision. Additionally, Cephalon and Teva have reached a settlement with 48 state attorneys general, which was approved by the court on November 7, 2016. Certain other claimants, including the State of California, have given notices of potential claims related to these settlement agreements. Teva has produced documents and information in response to discovery requests issued by the California Attorney General’s office as part of its ongoing investigation of generic competition to PROVIGIL. In May 2015, Cephalon entered into a consent decree with the FTC under which the FTC dismissed its claims against Cephalon in the FTC Modafinil Action in exchange for payment of $1.2 billion (less set-offs for prior settlements) by Cephalon and Teva into a settlement fund. Under the consent decree, Teva also agreed to certain injunctive relief with respect to the types of settlement agreements Teva may enter into to resolve patent litigation in the United States for a period of ten years. The settlement fund does not cover any judgments or settlements outside the United States. Following an investigation initiated by the European Commission in April 2011 regarding a modafinil patent settlement in Europe, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections in July 2017 against both Cephalon and Teva alleging that the 2005 settlement agreement between the parties had the object and effect of hindering the entry of generic modafinil. Teva submitted its defense in writing and an oral hearing was held. No final decision regarding infringement has yet been taken by The Commission. The sales of modafinil in the European Economic Area during the last full year of the alleged infringement amounted to EUR 46.5 million. In January 2009, the FTC and the State of California filed a complaint for injunctive relief in California federal court alleging that a September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Solvay”) relating to AndroGel^® 1% (testosterone gel) violated the antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits alleging similar claims were later filed by private plaintiffs (including plaintiffs purporting to represent classes of similarly situated claimants as well as direct purchaser plaintiffs filing separately), and the various actions were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in Georgia federal court. The defendants filed various summary judgment motions on September 29, 2017, and the direct-purchaser plaintiffs moved for class certification on February 9, 2018. Both sets of motions remain pending. Annual sales of AndroGel^® 1% at the time of the settlement were approximately $350 million, and annual sales of the AndroGel franchise (AndroGel^® 1% and AndroGel^® 1.62%) were approximately $140 million and $1.05 billion, respectively, at the time Actavis launched its generic version of AndroGel^® 1% in November 2015. In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor^® XR) entered into in November 2005. The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, by a purported class of indirect purchasers and by certain chain pharmacies in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry. In October 2014, the court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss in the direct purchaser cases, after which the parties agreed that the court’s reasoning applied equally to the indirect purchaser cases. Plaintiffs appealed, and on August 21, 2017, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. On November 20, 2017, Teva and Wyeth filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. That petition was denied on February 20, 2018, and litigation has resumed before the district court. Annual sales of Effexor^® XR were approximately $2.6 billion at the time of settlement and at the time generic versions were launched in July 2010. In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva in New Jersey federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal^®) entered into in February 2005. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the court dismissed the case. In January 2014, the court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and affirmed its original dismissal. In June 2015, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On February 19, 2016, Teva and GSK filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on November 7, 2016. In the meantime, litigation has resumed before the district court. Annual sales of Lamictal^® were approximately $950 million at the time of the settlement, and approximately $2.3 billion at the time generic competition commenced in July 2008. In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end payers for, Niaspan^® (extended release niacin) sued Teva and Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation over the product. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly identical to those of the direct purchaser class. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint, which has since been amended, in California state court alleging violations of state law. Further proceedings in the California action have been stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ petition for writ of mandate or prohibition filed with the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, which seeks an order vacating the Superior Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to strike all claims for restitution and civil penalties to the extent they are not limited to alleged activity in Orange County. Annual sales of Niaspan^® were approximately $416 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $1.1 billion at the time generic competition commenced in September 2013. In November 2013, a putative class action was filed in Pennsylvania federal court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that Watson’s 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. relating to Lidoderm^®(lidocaine transdermal patches) violated the antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations followed on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchaser and end-payer plaintiffs, as well as retailers acting in their individual capacities, and those cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in federal court in California. On February 21, 2017, the court granted both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ and the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. We reached an agreement to settle the multidistrict litigation with the various plaintiff groups in the first quarter of 2018. A provision for these settlements has been included in the financial statements, and on March 20, 2018, the direct purchaser and end-payor plaintiffs moved the court to preliminarily approve their respective settlements. The FTC has also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm^® settlement, initially bringing antitrust claims against Watson, Endo, and Allergan in Pennsylvania federal court in March 2016, and then later voluntarily dismissing those claims and re-filing them along with a stipulated order for permanent injunction, to settle its claims against Endo in the same California federal court in which the private multidistrict litigation referenced above was pending. On February 3, 2017, the State of California filed a complaint against Allergan and Watson, and that complaint was also assigned to the California court presiding over the multidistrict litigation. After the FTC dismissed its claims in Pennsylvania, but before it re-filed them in California, Watson and Allergan filed suit against the FTC in the same Pennsylvania federal court where the agency had initially brought its lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment that the FTC’s claims are not authorized by statute, or, in the alternative, that the FTC does not have statutory authority to pursue a disgorgement remedy. That declaratory judgment action remains pending, and the court in California has stayed both the FTC’s claims and the State of California’s claims against Allergan and Watson, pending the outcome of the declaratory judgment action in Pennsylvania. Annual sales of Lidoderm^® at the time of the settlement were approximately $1.2 billion, and were approximately $1.4 billion at the time Actavis launched its generic version in September 2013. Since November 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts by purported classes of end payers for, and direct purchasers of, Aggrenox^® (dipyridamole/aspirin tablets) against Boehringer Ingelheim (“BI”), the innovator, and several Teva subsidiaries. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement agreement between BI and Barr entered into in August 2008 violated the antitrust laws. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Teva and BI’s motion to dismiss was denied in March 2015. On April 11, 2017, the Orange County District Attorney filed a complaint for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law based on the Aggrenox^® patent litigation settlement. Annual sales of Aggrenox^® were approximately $340 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $455 million at the time generic competition began in July 2015. Teva has settled with the putative class of direct purchasers and the opt-out direct purchaser plaintiffs. Additionally, on January 8, 2018, Teva reached an agreement to settle with the end payer class plaintiffs, and subsequently settled with two of the opt-out end payer plaintiffs, Humana and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana. The settlement with the end payer class was preliminarily approved by the court on March 6, 2018. A provision has been included in the financial statements for this matter. Since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported classes of end payers for and direct purchasers of Actos^® and Acto plus Met^® (pioglitazone and pioglitazone plus metformin) against Takeda, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers, including Teva, Actavis and Watson. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement agreements between Takeda and the generic manufacturers (including Takeda’s December 2010 settlement agreement with Teva) violated the antitrust laws. The Court dismissed the end payer lawsuits against all defendants in September 2015. In October 2015, the end payers appealed that ruling, and on March 22, 2016, a stipulation was filed dismissing Teva and the other generic defendants from the appeal. On February 8, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and vacated and remanded the dismissal in part with respect to the claims against Takeda. The direct purchasers’ case had been stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the end payer matter, and the direct purchasers amended their complaint for a second time after the Second Circuit’s decision. Defendants had moved to dismiss the direct purchasers’ original complaint and supplemental briefing on that motion based on the new allegations in the amended complaint was completed on June 29, 2017. The court has not yet issued its decision. At the time of the settlement, annual sales of Actos^® were approximately $3.7 billion and annual sales of ACTO plus Met^® were approximately $500 million. At the time generic competition commenced in August 2012, annual sales of Actos^® were approximately $2.8 billion and annual sales of ACTO plus Met^® were approximately $430 million. In June 2014, two groups of end payers sued AstraZeneca and Teva, as well as Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy’s, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for violating the antitrust laws by entering into settlement agreements to resolve the esomeprazole (generic Nexium^®) patent litigation (the “Philadelphia Esomeprazole Actions”). These end payers had opted out of a class action that was filed in the Massachusetts federal court in September 2012 and resulted in a jury verdict in December 2014 in favor of AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy (the “Massachusetts Action”). Prior to the jury verdict, Teva settled with all plaintiffs in the Massachusetts Action for $24 million. The allegations in the Philadelphia Esomeprazole Actions are nearly identical to those in the Massachusetts Action. The Philadelphia Esomeprazole Actions were stayed pending resolution of the Massachusetts Action, which was on appeal to the First Circuit with respect to the claims against the non-settlingdefendants AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy. On November 21, 2016, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy, and the plaintiffs’ petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on January 10, 2017. In September 2014, the FTC sued AbbVie Inc. and certain of its affiliates (“AbbVie”) and Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that they violated the antitrust laws when they entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the AndroGel^® patent litigation and a supply agreement under which AbbVie would supply authorized generic product for TriCor^® to Teva. The FTC alleges that Teva agreed to delay the entry of its generic testosterone gel product in exchange for entering into the TriCor supply agreement. In May 2015, the court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s claim as to Teva. The FTC’s motions for reconsideration and for entry of partial final judgment to permit an immediate appeal were denied, so the FTC cannot appeal the dismissal until its claims against AbbVie are resolved. The Court granted the FTC’s summary judgment motion that AbbVie’s patent infringement lawsuit against Teva in the AndroGel patent litigation was objectively baseless. A bench trial for the FTC’s case against AbbVie began in February 2018 and concluded in April 2018. The court has not yet issued its decision. Since May 2015, two lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a purported class of direct purchasers of, and a purported class of end payers for, Namenda IR^® (memantine hydrochloride) against Forest Laboratories, LLC (“Forest”) and Actavis PLC, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers, including Teva. Teva is only a defendant in the end payer case and defendants moved to dismiss the claims made by the end payers. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers (including Forest’s November 2009 settlement agreement with Teva) violated the antitrust laws. On September 13, 2016, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, but stayed the cases with respect to the claims brought under state law, which are the only claims asserted against Teva. Annual sales of Namenda IR^® at the time of the settlement were approximately $1.1 billion, and are currently approximately $1.4 billion. On March 8, 2016 and April 11, 2016, certain Actavis subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, including Auden Mckenzie Holdings Limited, received notices from the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) that it had launched formal investigations under Section 25 of the Competition Act of 1998 (“Competition Act”) into suspected breaches of competition law in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets. On December 16, 2016, the CMA issued a statement of objections (a provisional finding of infringement of the Competition Act) in respect of certain allegations against Actavis UK and Allergan, which was later reissued to include certain Auden Mckenzie entities. A response was submitted and an oral hearing was held. On December 18, 2017, the CMA issued a Statement of Draft Penalty Calculation. A response was submitted and an oral hearing was held. No final decision regarding infringement of competition law has yet been issued by the CMA. On March 3, 2017, the CMA issued a second statement of objection in respect of certain additional allegations (relating to the same products and covering part of the same time period as for the first statement of objections) against Actavis UK, Allergan, and a number of other companies, which was later reissued to include certain Auden Mckenzie entities. A response was submitted and an oral hearing was held. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, pursuant to which Teva will indemnify Accord Healthcare for fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court on Actavis UK as a result of the investigations in respect of conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In the event of any such fines or damages, Teva expects to assert claims, including claims for breach of warranty, against the sellers of Auden Mckenzie. The terms of the purchase agreement may preclude a full recovery by Teva. A liability for this matter has been recorded in purchase accounting related to the acquisition of Actavis Generics. Further to our Master Purchase Agreement with Allergan whereby Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan for liabilities related to acquired assets, Teva agreed with Allergan to settle and release Teva’s indemnity claim and Allergan’s potential losses arising from the CMA in connection with this matter, pursuant to the agreement the parties entered into on January 31, 2018. See note 3. In November 2016, three putative indirect purchaser class actions were filed in federal courts in Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Florida against Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire LLC (collectively, “Shire”) and Actavis, alleging that Shire’s 2013 patent litigation settlement with Actavis related to the ADHD drug Intuniv^® (guanfacine) violated various state consumer protection and antitrust laws. On December 30, 2016 and January 11, 2017, two additional similar actions were filed, also in Massachusetts federal court, against Shire and Actavis or Teva (as successor to Actavis) by putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs. All five cases are now in Massachusetts federal court, and on March 10, 2017, both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints. Annual sales of Intuniv^® were approximately $335 million at the time of the settlement, and approximately $327 million at the time generic competition began in 2014. Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing Teva is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing and promotion of its pharmaceutical products in the United States. Many of these investigations originate through what are known as qui tamcomplaints, in which the government reviews a complaint filed under seal by a whistleblower (a “relator”) that alleges violations of the federal False Claims Act. The government considers whether to investigate the allegations and will, in many cases, issue subpoenas requesting documents and other information, including conducting witness interviews. The government must decide whether to intervene and pursue the claims as the plaintiff. Once a decision is made by the government, the complaint is unsealed. If the government decides not to intervene, then the relator may decide to pursue the lawsuit on his own without the active participation of the government. A number of state attorneys general have filed various actions against Teva and/or certain of its subsidiaries, including certain Actavis subsidiaries, relating to reimbursements or drug price reporting under Medicaid or other programs. Such price reporting is alleged to have caused governments and others to pay inflated reimbursements for covered drugs. Teva and its subsidiaries have reached settlements in most of these cases, and remain parties to active litigation in Illinois. The Actavis subsidiaries remain parties to active litigation in Illinois and Utah. A provision for the cases has been included in the financial statements. Trial in the Illinois case against Teva concluded in the fourth quarter of 2013, and post-trial briefing was submitted. On June 28, 2017, after several years, the court issued a Memorandum Order After Trial finding liability against Teva, but reserved its decision on damages. Teva denies any liability and sought reconsideration of the order, which was denied. A hearing on damages is scheduled for August 8, 2018. The State of Illinois is seeking approximately $90 million in compensatory damages. Any such damages ultimately awarded by the court are subject to automatic trebling. In addition, the state is seeking statutory penalties ranging from $362 million to approximately $1.2 billion. Teva will continue to argue that any damages and penalties should be significantly less than the amount sought by the state. In August 2013, in the Mississippi case against Watson, the court ruled in favor of the state, awarding $12.4 million in compensatory damages and civil penalties. In March 2014, the court awarded the state an additional $17.9 million in punitive damages. A provision for these amounts has been included in the financial statements. Watson appealed both the original and the punitive damage awards. On January 11, 2018, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the State of Mississippi and against Watson in all respects. On February 9, 2018, the judgment was fully satisfied and on February 16, 2018, the trial court discharged the appeal bond fully concluding this matter. In Utah, claims against Watson that were dismissed in their entirety by the trial court are now on appeal. Several qui tam complaints have been unsealed in recent years as a result of government decisions not to participate in the cases. The following is a summary of certain government investigations, qui tam actions and related matters. In January 2014, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York seeking documents and information from January 1, 2006 related to sales, marketing and promotion of COPAXONE and AZILECT, focusing on educational and speaker programs. The demand states that the government is investigating possible civil violations of the federal False Claims Act. In March 2015, the docket in this matter and a False Claims Act civil qui tam complaint concerning this matter were unsealed by the court, which revealed that the U.S. Attorney had notified the court in November 2014 that it had declined to intervene in and proceed with the lawsuit. The qui tam relators, however, are moving forward with the lawsuit. In June 2015, Teva filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In February 2016, the court stayed its decision on the relators’ claims based on state and local laws, denied Teva’s motions to dismiss the False Claims Act claims, and instructed the relators to amend their complaint with additional information. In March 2016, the relators filed an amended complaint, which Teva answered in April 2016. The parties are currently engaged in discovery. Beginning in May 2014 various complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of cities, counties, states and agencies across the country. There are actions currently pending against Teva and its affiliates that have been brought by various states, subdivisions and state agencies in both State and Federal Courts. Most of the Federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. In addition to the complaints filed by states, state agencies and political subdivisions, private class action lawsuits have been filed in Arkansas, Massachusetts, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Several counties in various states and the State of Delaware have commenced an action against Anda, Inc. (and other distributor and manufacturer defendants) alleging that Anda, Inc. failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other than legitimate medical purposes. The complaints, asserting claims under similar provisions of different state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including ACTIQ^® and FENTORA and seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. None of the complaints specifies the exact amount of damages at issue. Teva and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or will be filing motions to dismiss where possible. On April 11, 2018, the judge in the multidistrict litigation issued a case management order setting the first trial for March 2019. On April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from the DOJ seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale of opioids. Teva intends to comply with this subpoena. In addition, a number of State Attorneys General, including a coordinated multistate effort, have initiated investigations into sales and marketing practices of Teva and its affiliates with respect to opioids. Teva is cooperating with these investigations, which are ongoing, and cannot predict at this time the outcome. On June 21, 2016, Teva USA received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain of Teva USA’s generic products and communications with competitors about such products. Actavis received a similar subpoena in June 2015. On July 12, 2016, Teva USA received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. Actavis has also received a similar subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General. Teva and Actavis are cooperating fully with these subpoenas. On December 15, 2016, a civil action was brought by the attorneys general of twenty states against Teva USA and several other companies asserting claims under federal antitrust law (specifically, section 1 of the Sherman Act) alleging price fixing of generic products in United States. An amended complaint was filed on March 1, 2017 adding twenty additional states to the named plaintiffs and adding supplemental state law claims. The states seek a finding that the defendants’ actions violated federal antitrust law, and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages on behalf of various state and governmental entities and consumers, civil penalties and costs. On August 3, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred this action to the generic drug multidistrict litigation pending in federal court in Pennsylvania, which is discussed in greater detail below. On July 17, 2017, a new complaint was filed in the District Court of Connecticut on behalf of four additional states – Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. These plaintiffs were not previously party to the State Attorney General action that commenced in December 2016. This complaint, which the JPML has also transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation discussed below, makes the same factual allegations and claims that are at issue in the earlier State Attorneys General complaint. On October 31, 2017 the attorneys general of 45 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint in this action. The proposed amended complaint names Actavis as a defendant as well as Teva, and adds new allegations and claims to those appearing in the prior complaints. Defendants have opposed the motion. Beginning on March 2, 2016, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct purchaser opt-outplaintiffs. These complaints, which allege that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix, increase, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of the generic drug products named, have been brought against various defendants including, among others, Teva USA, Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Actavis Elizabeth and Pliva, Inc. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and damages under various state laws. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) entered an order transferring cases brought by classes of direct or indirect purchasers and alleging claims of generic price-fixing for coordination or consolidation with the multidistrict litigation currently pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the panel subsequently transferred further cases to that court, and the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on August 15, 2017. Defendants moved to dismiss certain of those consolidated amended complaints on October 6, 2017. In February 2018, the court overseeing the multidistrict litigation lifted the stay of discovery on a limited basis to allow for document discovery and non-merits based depositions. Teva denies having engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability with respect to the above-mentioned subpoenas and civil suits. On March 21, 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva’s donations to patient assistance programs. Teva is cooperating fully in responding to the subpoena. For several years, Teva had conducted a voluntary worldwide investigation into business practices that may have implications under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), following the receipt, beginning in 2012, of subpoenas and informal document requests from the SEC and the DOJ with respect to compliance with the FCPA in certain countries. In December 2016, Teva reached a resolution with the SEC and DOJ to fully resolve these FCPA matters. The resolution, which relates to conduct in Russia, Mexico and Ukraine from 2007 to 2013, provides for penalties of approximately $519 million (reserved in the financial statements in the third quarter of 2016), which includes a fine, disgorgement and prejudgment interest; a three-year deferred prosecution agreement for Teva; a guilty plea by Teva’s Russian subsidiary to criminal charges of violations of the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA; consent to entry of a final judgment against Teva settling civil claims of violations of the anti-bribery, internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA; and the retention of an independent compliance monitor for a period of three years. The SEC civil consent and DOJ deferred prosecution agreement have each obtained court approval. Following the resolution, Teva has had requests for documents and information from various Russian government entities. In December 2016, Teva was informed by Israeli authorities that they had initiated an investigation into the conduct that was the subject of the FCPA investigation and which resulted in the above-mentioned resolution with the SEC and DOJ. On January 14, 2018, Teva and the Government of Israel entered into an arrangement for the Contingent Cessation of Proceedings pursuant to the Israeli Securities Law that ends the investigation into such conduct against the Company and provides for a payment of 75 million New Israeli Shekels (approximately $22 million). Shareholder Litigation On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers. After those two lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff then filed a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs, and it asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated the federal securities laws and Israeli securities laws in connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose Teva’s participation in an alleged anticompetitive scheme to fix prices and allocate markets for generic drugs in the United States. On December 1, 2017, Teva and the current and former officer and director defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with prejudice. On April 3, 2017, the Court granted the motions to dismiss without prejudice. A second amended complaint is expected with renewed dismissal briefing. On July 17, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on behalf of the Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who purchased Teva stock through that plan. That lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest and costs. The complaint alleges that Teva failed to maintain adequate financial controls based on the facts underpinning Teva’s FCPA deferred prosecution agreement, and also based on allegations substantially similar to those in the putative class action securities lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, discussed above. On November 29, 2017, the Court granted Teva’s motion to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut where the putative class action securities lawsuit is pending. On December 29, 2017, the parties jointly moved to stay the case pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative securities class action described above. On August 3, 2017, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut by OZ ELS Master Fund, Ltd., OZ Special Funding, L.P, OZ Enhanced Master Fund, Ltd., Gordel Capital Limited, OZ Global Equity Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., OZ Master Fund, Ltd., and OZ Global Special Investments Master Fund L.P. The complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose Teva’s participation in an alleged anticompetitive scheme to fix prices and allocate markets for generic drugs in the United States. On August 30, 2017, the court entered an order deferring all deadlines pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative securities class action described above. On August 21, 2017, a putative class action securities lawsuit was filed by Elliot Grodko in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. The complaint alleged that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws and Israeli securities laws by making false and misleading statements in connection with Teva’s acquisition and integration of Actavis Generics. On April 10, 2018, the Court granted Teva’s motion to transfer this action to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers securities litigation is currently pending. On August 30, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed by Barry Baker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. The complaint alleges that Teva and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements in connection with Teva’s acquisition and integration of Actavis Generics. On November 1, 2017, the Court consolidated the Baker case with the Grodko case, discussed above. On April 10, 2018, the Court granted Teva’s motion to transfer this action to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers securities litigation is currently pending. Motions to approve derivative actions against certain past and present directors and officers have been filed in Israel with respect to alleged negligence and recklessness with respect to the acquisition of the Rimsa business and the acquisition of Actavis Generics. Motions for document disclosure prior to initiating derivatives were filed with respect to dividend distribution and executive compensation. Motions to approve securities class actions against Teva and certain of its current and former directors and officers were filed in Israel with allegations regarding proper disclosure of the above-mentioned pricing investigation as well as lack of disclosure of negative developments in the generic sector and erosion of the prices of Teva’s products as were presented in the second quarter financial reporting of Teva. Other motions were filed in Israel to approve a derivative action, discovery and a class action related to alleged claims regarding Teva’s above-mentioned FCPA resolution with the SEC and DOJ. Environmental Matters Teva or its subsidiaries are party to a number of environmental proceedings, or have received claims, including under the federal Superfund law or other federal, provincial or state and local laws imposing liability for alleged noncompliance, or for the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances and for natural resource damages. Many of these proceedings and claims seek to require the generators of hazardous wastes disposed of at a third party-owned site, or the party responsible for a release of hazardous substances that impacted a site, to investigate and cleanup the site or to pay or reimburse others for such activities, including for oversight by governmental authorities and any related damages to natural resources. Teva or its subsidiaries have received claims, or been made a party to these proceedings, along with others, as an alleged generator of wastes that were disposed of or treated at third-party waste disposal sites, or as a result of an alleged release from one of Teva’s facilities or former facilities. Although liability among the responsible parties, under certain circumstances, may be joint and several, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup and other costs among the parties reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site conditions and takes into account other pertinent factors. Teva’s potential liability varies greatly at each of the sites; for some sites the costs of the investigation, cleanup and natural resource damages have not yet been determined, and for others Teva’s allocable share of liability has not been determined. At other sites, Teva has taken an active role in identifying those costs, to the extent they are identifiable and estimable, which do not include reductions for potential recoveries of cleanup costs from insurers, indemnitors, former site owners or operators or other potentially responsible parties. In addition, enforcement proceedings relating to alleged violations of federal, state, commonwealth or local requirements at some of Teva’s facilities may result, in the imposition of significant penalties (in amounts not expected to materially adversely affect Teva’s results of operations) and the recovery of certain costs and natural resource damages, and may require that corrective actions and enhanced compliance measures be implemented. Other Matters On February 1, 2018, former shareholders of Ception Therapeutics, Inc. a company that was acquired by and merged into Cephalon in 2010, prior to Cephalon’s acquisition by Teva, filed breach of contract and other related claims against the Company, Teva USA and Cephalon in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that Cephalon breached the terms of the 2010 Ception-Cephalon merger agreement by failing to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize CINQAIR^® (reslizumab) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE). The plaintiffs claim damages of at least $200 million, an amount they allege is equivalent to the milestones payable to the former shareholders of Ception in the event Cephalon were to obtain regulatory approval for EE in the United States ($150 million) and Europe ($50 million). All defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, and filed briefs in support of their motions on April 10, 2018.

NOTE 16 – Commitments and Contingencies:

General

From time to time, Teva and/or its subsidiaries are subject to claims for damages and/or equitable relief arising in the ordinary course of business. In addition, as described below, in large part as a result of the nature of its business, Teva is frequently subject to litigation. Teva generally believes that it has meritorious defenses to the actions brought against it and vigorously pursues the defense or settlement of each such action. Except as described below, Teva does not currently have a reasonable basis to estimate the loss, or range of loss, that is reasonably possible with respect to matters disclosed in this note.

Teva records a provision in its financial statements to the extent that it concludes that a contingent liability is probable and the amount thereof is estimable. Based upon the status of the cases described below, management’s assessments of the likelihood of damages, and the advice of counsel, no provisions have been made regarding the matters disclosed in this note, except as noted below. Litigation outcomes and contingencies are unpredictable, and excessive verdicts can occur. Accordingly, management’s assessments involve complex judgments about future events and often rely heavily on estimates and assumptions. Teva continuously reviews the matters described below and may, from time to time, remove previously disclosed matters that the Company has determined no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure.

If one or more of such proceedings described below were to result in final judgments against Teva, such judgments could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period. In addition, Teva incurs significant legal fees and related expenses in the course of defending its positions even if the facts and circumstances of a particular litigation do not give rise to a provision in the financial statements.

In connection with third-party agreements, Teva may under certain circumstances be required to indemnify, and may be indemnified by, in unspecified amounts, the parties to such agreements against third-party claims. Among other things, Teva’s agreements with third parties may require Teva to indemnify them, or require them to indemnify Teva, for the costs and damages incurred in connection with product liability claims, in specified or unspecified amounts.

Except as otherwise noted, all of the litigation matters disclosed below involve claims arising in the United States. Except as otherwise noted, all third party sales figures given below are based on IQVIA (formerly IMS Health Inc.) data.

Intellectual Property Litigation

From time to time, Teva seeks to develop generic versions of patent-protected pharmaceuticals for sale prior to patent expiration in various markets. In the United States, to obtain approval for most generics prior to the expiration of the originator’s patents, Teva must challenge the patents under the procedures set forth in the Hatch-Waxman Act of 1984, as amended. To the extent that Teva seeks to utilize such patent challenge procedures, Teva is and expects to be involved in patent litigation regarding the validity, enforceability or infringement of the originator’s patents. Teva may also be involved in patent litigation involving the extent to which its product or manufacturing process techniques may infringe other originator or third-party patents.

Additionally, depending upon a complex analysis of a variety of legal and commercial factors, Teva may, in certain circumstances, elect to market a generic version even though litigation is still pending. To the extent Teva elects to proceed in this manner, it could face substantial liability for patent infringement if the final court decision is adverse to Teva, which could be material to its results of operations and cash flows in a given period.

The general rule for damages in patent infringement cases in the United States is that the patentee should be compensated by no less than a reasonable royalty, and it may also be able in certain circumstances to be compensated for its lost profits. The amount of a reasonable royalty award would generally be calculated based on the sales of Teva’s product. The amount of lost profits would generally be based on the lost sales of the patentee’s product. In addition, the patentee may seek consequential damages as well as enhanced damages of up to three times the profits lost by the patent holder for willful infringement, although courts have typically awarded much lower multiples.

Teva is also involved in litigation regarding patents in other countries where it does business, particularly in Europe, where Teva has in recent years increased the number of launches of its generic versions of branded pharmaceuticals prior to the expiration of the innovator’s patents. The laws concerning generic pharmaceuticals and patents differ from country to country. Damages for patent infringement in Europe may include lost profits or a reasonable royalty, but enhanced damages for willful infringement are generally not available.

In July 2014, GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) sued Teva in Delaware federal court for infringement of a patent expiring in June 2015 directed to using carvedilol in a specified manner to decrease the risk of mortality in patients with congestive heart failure. Teva and eight other generic producers began selling their carvedilol tablets (the generic version of GSK’s Coreg^®) in September 2007. Teva vigorously disputed GSK’s claims on the merits and also disputed the amount and nature of GSK’s alleged damages. A jury trial was held and the jury returned a verdict in GSK’s favor finding Teva liable for induced infringement, including willful infringement, and assessing damages of $235.5 million, not including pre- or post-judgment interest. Teva filed post-trial motions for judgment as a matter of law asking the court to overturn the jury verdict on inducement, invalidity, and the award of lost profits damages, and GSK filed post-trial motions asking the court to increase the damages amount in light of the willful infringement finding and to set the interest rate(s) to be applied to the total damages amount. On March 28, 2018, the District Court issued an opinion overturning the jury verdict and instead found no induced infringement by Teva, thereby finding that Teva did not owe any damages. The District Court denied Teva’s motion seeking to overturn the jury verdict with respect to invalidity and denied GSK’s motion seeking to increase the damages award. GSK can appeal this decision. If the appeal of the District Court’s decision is decided against Teva, the case would be remanded to the District Court for it to consider Teva’s other legal and equitable defenses that have not yet been considered by the District Court. The provision that was included in the financial statements for this matter has been reversed as the exposure is no longer considered probable.

In 2014, Teva Canada succeeded in its challenge of the bortezomib (the generic equivalent of Velcade^®) product and mannitol ester patents under the Patented Medicines (Notice Of Compliance) Regulations (“PM(NOC)”). Teva commenced sales in the first quarter of 2015. At the time of Teva’s launch, annual sales of Velcade were approximately 94 million Canadian dollars. Teva commenced an action under Section 8 of PM(NOC) to recover damages for being kept off of the market during the PM(NOC) proceedings. Janssen and Millennium filed a counterclaim for infringement of the same two patents as well as a patent covering a process to prepare bortezomib. The product patent expired in October 2015; the other patents expire in January 2022 and March 2025. On December 20, 2017, Teva entered into an agreement with Janssen and Millenium which limits the damages payable by either party depending on the outcome of the infringement/impeachment action. As a result, the most Janssen and Millenium could recover is 200 million Canadian dollars (approximately $159 million) plus post-judgment interest. The trial, which is limited to the issue of patent validity and infringement, began on January 29, 2018 and concluded on March 8, 2018. The court has not yet issued any decision. In addition to the potential damages that could be awarded, if Janssen and Millenium ultimately were successful in their allegations of patent infringement, Teva could be enjoined from further sales of its bortezomib product.

Product Liability Litigation

Teva’s business inherently exposes it to potential product liability claims. Teva maintains a program of insurance, which may include commercial insurance, self-insurance (including direct risk retention), or a combination of both approaches, in amounts and on terms that it believes are reasonable and prudent in light of its business and related risks. However, Teva sells, and will continue to sell, pharmaceuticals that are not covered by its product liability insurance; in addition, it may be subject to claims for which insurance coverage is denied as well as claims that exceed its policy limits. Product liability coverage for pharmaceutical companies is becoming more expensive and increasingly difficult to obtain. As a result, Teva may not be able to obtain the type and amount of commercial insurance it desires, or any commercial insurance on reasonable terms, in all of its markets.

Competition Matters

As part of its generic pharmaceuticals business, Teva has challenged a number of patents covering branded pharmaceuticals, some of which are among the most widely-prescribed and well-known drugs on the market. Many of Teva’s patent challenges have resulted in litigation relating to Teva’s attempts to market generic versions of such pharmaceuticals under the federal Hatch-Waxman Act. Some of this litigation has been resolved through settlement agreements in which Teva obtained a license to market a generic version of the drug, often years before the patents expire.

Teva and its subsidiaries have increasingly been named as defendants in cases that allege antitrust violations arising from such settlement agreements. The plaintiffs in these cases, which are usually direct and indirect purchasers of pharmaceutical products, and often assert claims on behalf of classes of all direct and indirect purchasers, typically allege that (1) Teva received something of value from the innovator in exchange for an agreement to delay generic entry, and (2) significant savings could have been realized if there had been no settlement agreement and generic competition had commenced earlier. These class action cases seek various forms of injunctive and monetary relief, including damages based on the difference between the brand price and what the generic price allegedly would have been and disgorgement of profits, which are automatically trebled under the relevant statutes, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The alleged damages generally depend on the size of the branded market and the length of the alleged delay, and can be substantial – potentially measured in multiples of the annual brand sales – particularly where the alleged delays are lengthy or branded drugs with annual sales in the billions of dollars are involved.

Teva believes that its settlement agreements are lawful and serve to increase competition, and has defended them vigorously. In Teva’s experience to date, these cases have typically settled for a fraction of the high end of the damages sought, although there can be no assurance that such outcomes will continue.

In June 2013, the United States Supreme Court held, in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis, Inc. (the “AndroGel case”), that a rule of reason test should be applied in analyzing whether such settlements potentially violate the federal antitrust laws. The Supreme Court held that a trial court must analyze each agreement in its entirety in order to determine whether it violates the antitrust laws. This new test has resulted in increased scrutiny of Teva’s patent settlements, additional action by the FTC and state and local authorities, and an increased risk of liability in Teva’s currently pending antitrust litigations.

In April 2006, certain subsidiaries of Teva were named in a class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case alleges that the settlement agreements entered into between Cephalon, Inc., now a Teva subsidiary (“Cephalon”), and various generic pharmaceutical companies in late 2005 and early 2006 to resolve patent litigation involving certain finished modafinil products (marketed as PROVIGIL^®) were unlawful because they had the effect of excluding generic competition. The case also alleges that Cephalon improperly asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic pharmaceutical companies. The first lawsuit was brought by King Drug Company of Florence, Inc. on behalf of itself and as a proposed class action on behalf of any other person or entity that purchased PROVIGIL directly from Cephalon (the “Direct Purchaser Class”). Similar allegations were made in other complaints, including those filed on behalf of a proposed class of end payers of PROVIGIL (the “End Payer Class”), by certain individual end payers, by certain retail chain pharmacies and by Apotex, Inc. (collectively, these cases are referred to as the “Philadelphia Modafinil Action”). Separately, Apotex challenged Cephalon’s PROVIGIL patent, and in October 2011, the Court found the patent to be invalid and unenforceable based on inequitable conduct. This decision was affirmed on appeal in April 2013. Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to settle with all of the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Modafinil Action. However, one of the end payers, United Healthcare Services, took the position that it is not bound by the settlement that was agreed to on its behalf and brought a separate action in Minnesota federal court, which has been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, where Teva has also filed suit to enforce the settlement. A bench trial in the suit to enforce the settlement commenced on April 23, 2018 and concluded on April 27, 2018. The court ordered post-trial briefing to be submitted within 45 days and has not yet issued any decision.

Additionally, Cephalon and Teva have reached a settlement with 48 state attorneys general, which was approved by the court on November 7, 2016. Certain other claimants, including the State of California, have given notices of potential claims related to these settlement agreements. Teva has produced documents and information in response to discovery requests issued by the California Attorney General’s office as part of its ongoing investigation of generic competition to PROVIGIL.

In May 2015, Cephalon entered into a consent decree with the FTC under which the FTC dismissed its claims against Cephalon in the FTC Modafinil Action in exchange for payment of $1.2 billion (less set-offs for prior settlements) by Cephalon and Teva into a settlement fund. Under the consent decree, Teva also agreed to certain injunctive relief with respect to the types of settlement agreements Teva may enter into to resolve patent litigation in the United States for a period of ten years. The settlement fund does not cover any judgments or settlements outside the United States.

Following an investigation initiated by the European Commission in April 2011 regarding a modafinil patent settlement in Europe, the Commission issued a Statement of Objections in July 2017 against both Cephalon and Teva alleging that the 2005 settlement agreement between the parties had the object and effect of hindering the entry of generic modafinil. Teva submitted its defense in writing and an oral hearing was held. No final decision regarding infringement has yet been taken by The Commission. The sales of modafinil in the European Economic Area during the last full year of the alleged infringement amounted to EUR 46.5 million.

In January 2009, the FTC and the State of California filed a complaint for injunctive relief in California federal court alleging that a September 2006 patent lawsuit settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Solvay”) relating to AndroGel^® 1% (testosterone gel) violated the antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits alleging similar claims were later filed by private plaintiffs (including plaintiffs purporting to represent classes of similarly situated claimants as well as direct purchaser plaintiffs filing separately), and the various actions were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in Georgia federal court. The defendants filed various summary judgment motions on September 29, 2017, and the direct-purchaser plaintiffs moved for class certification on February 9, 2018. Both sets of motions remain pending. Annual sales of AndroGel^® 1% at the time of the settlement were approximately $350 million, and annual sales of the AndroGel franchise (AndroGel^® 1% and AndroGel^® 1.62%) were approximately $140 million and $1.05 billion, respectively, at the time Actavis launched its generic version of AndroGel^® 1% in November 2015.

In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs sued Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor^® XR) entered into in November 2005. The cases were filed by a purported class of direct purchasers, by a purported class of indirect purchasers and by certain chain pharmacies in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement between Wyeth and Teva unlawfully delayed generic entry. In October 2014, the court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss in the direct purchaser cases, after which the parties agreed that the court’s reasoning applied equally to the indirect purchaser cases. Plaintiffs appealed, and on August 21, 2017, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. On November 20, 2017, Teva and Wyeth filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. That petition was denied on February 20, 2018, and litigation has resumed before the district court. Annual sales of Effexor^® XR were approximately $2.6 billion at the time of settlement and at the time generic versions were launched in July 2010.

In February 2012, two purported classes of direct-purchaser plaintiffs sued GSK and Teva in New Jersey federal court for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving lamotrigine (generic Lamictal^®) entered into in February 2005. The plaintiffs claim that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and seek unspecified damages. In December 2012, the court dismissed the case. In January 2014, the court denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration and affirmed its original dismissal. In June 2015, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. On February 19, 2016, Teva and GSK filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court, which was denied on November 7, 2016. In the meantime, litigation has resumed before the district court. Annual sales of Lamictal^® were approximately $950 million at the time of the settlement, and approximately $2.3 billion at the time generic competition commenced in July 2008.

In April 2013, purported classes of direct purchasers of, and end payers for, Niaspan^® (extended release niacin) sued Teva and Abbott for violating the antitrust laws by entering into a settlement agreement in April 2005 to resolve patent litigation over the product. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Throughout 2015 and in January 2016, several individual direct purchaser opt-out plaintiffs filed complaints with allegations nearly identical to those of the direct purchaser class. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint, which has since been amended, in California state court alleging violations of state law. Further proceedings in the California action have been stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ petition for writ of mandate or prohibition filed with the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, which seeks an order vacating the Superior Court’s denial of Defendants’ motion to strike all claims for restitution and civil penalties to the extent they are not limited to alleged activity in Orange County. Annual sales of Niaspan^® were approximately $416 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $1.1 billion at the time generic competition commenced in September 2013.

In November 2013, a putative class action was filed in Pennsylvania federal court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its affiliates, alleging that Watson’s 2012 patent lawsuit settlement with Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. relating to Lidoderm^®(lidocaine transdermal patches) violated the antitrust laws. Additional lawsuits containing similar allegations followed on behalf of other classes of putative direct purchaser and end-payer plaintiffs, as well as retailers acting in their individual capacities, and those cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in federal court in California. On February 21, 2017, the court granted both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs’ and the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motions for class certification. We reached an agreement to settle the multidistrict litigation with the various plaintiff groups in the first quarter of 2018. A provision for these settlements has been included in the financial statements, and on March 20, 2018, the direct purchaser and end-payor plaintiffs moved the court to preliminarily approve their respective settlements. The FTC has also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm^® settlement, initially bringing antitrust claims against Watson, Endo, and Allergan in Pennsylvania federal court in March 2016, and then later voluntarily dismissing those claims and re-filing them along with a stipulated order for permanent injunction, to settle its claims against Endo in the same California federal court in which the private multidistrict litigation referenced above was pending. On February 3, 2017, the State of California filed a complaint against Allergan and Watson, and that complaint was also assigned to the California court presiding over the multidistrict litigation. After the FTC dismissed its claims in Pennsylvania, but before it re-filed them in California, Watson and Allergan filed suit against the FTC in the same Pennsylvania federal court where the agency had initially brought its lawsuit, seeking a declaratory judgment that the FTC’s claims are not authorized by statute, or, in the alternative, that the FTC does not have statutory authority to pursue a disgorgement remedy. That declaratory judgment action remains pending, and the court in California has stayed both the FTC’s claims and the State of California’s claims against Allergan and Watson, pending the outcome of the declaratory judgment action in Pennsylvania. Annual sales of Lidoderm^® at the time of the settlement were approximately $1.2 billion, and were approximately $1.4 billion at the time Actavis launched its generic version in September 2013.

Since November 2013, numerous lawsuits have been filed in various federal courts by purported classes of end payers for, and direct purchasers of, Aggrenox^® (dipyridamole/aspirin tablets) against Boehringer Ingelheim (“BI”), the innovator, and several Teva subsidiaries. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement agreement between BI and Barr entered into in August 2008 violated the antitrust laws. A multidistrict litigation has been established in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Teva and BI’s motion to dismiss was denied in March 2015. On April 11, 2017, the Orange County District Attorney filed a complaint for violations of California’s Unfair Competition Law based on the Aggrenox^® patent litigation settlement. Annual sales of Aggrenox^® were approximately $340 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $455 million at the time generic competition began in July 2015. Teva has settled with the putative class of direct purchasers and the opt-out direct purchaser plaintiffs. Additionally, on January 8, 2018, Teva reached an agreement to settle with the end payer class plaintiffs, and subsequently settled with two of the opt-out end payer plaintiffs, Humana and Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana. The settlement with the end payer class was preliminarily approved by the court on March 6, 2018. A provision has been included in the financial statements for this matter.

Since January 2014, numerous lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by purported classes of end payers for and direct purchasers of Actos^® and Acto plus Met^® (pioglitazone and pioglitazone plus metformin) against Takeda, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers, including Teva, Actavis and Watson. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement agreements between Takeda and the generic manufacturers (including Takeda’s December 2010 settlement agreement with Teva) violated the antitrust laws. The Court dismissed the end payer lawsuits against all defendants in September 2015. In October 2015, the end payers appealed that ruling, and on March 22, 2016, a stipulation was filed dismissing Teva and the other generic defendants from the appeal. On February 8, 2017, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal in part and vacated and remanded the dismissal in part with respect to the claims against Takeda. The direct purchasers’ case had been stayed pending resolution of the appeal in the end payer matter, and the direct purchasers amended their complaint for a second time after the Second Circuit’s decision. Defendants had moved to dismiss the direct purchasers’ original complaint and supplemental briefing on that motion based on the new allegations in the amended complaint was completed on June 29, 2017. The court has not yet issued its decision. At the time of the settlement, annual sales of Actos^® were approximately $3.7 billion and annual sales of ACTO plus Met^® were approximately $500 million. At the time generic competition commenced in August 2012, annual sales of Actos^® were approximately $2.8 billion and annual sales of ACTO plus Met^® were approximately $430 million.

In June 2014, two groups of end payers sued AstraZeneca and Teva, as well as Ranbaxy and Dr. Reddy’s, in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas for violating the antitrust laws by entering into settlement agreements to resolve the esomeprazole (generic Nexium^®) patent litigation (the “Philadelphia Esomeprazole Actions”). These end payers had opted out of a class action that was filed in the Massachusetts federal court in September 2012 and resulted in a jury verdict in December 2014 in favor of AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy (the “Massachusetts Action”). Prior to the jury verdict, Teva settled with all plaintiffs in the Massachusetts Action for $24 million. The allegations in the Philadelphia Esomeprazole Actions are nearly identical to those in the Massachusetts Action. The Philadelphia Esomeprazole Actions were stayed pending resolution of the Massachusetts Action, which was on appeal to the First Circuit with respect to the claims against the non-settlingdefendants AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy. On November 21, 2016, the First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment in favor of AstraZeneca and Ranbaxy, and the plaintiffs’ petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc were denied on January 10, 2017.

In September 2014, the FTC sued AbbVie Inc. and certain of its affiliates (“AbbVie”) and Teva in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that they violated the antitrust laws when they entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the AndroGel^® patent litigation and a supply agreement under which AbbVie would supply authorized generic product for TriCor^® to Teva. The FTC alleges that Teva agreed to delay the entry of its generic testosterone gel product in exchange for entering into the TriCor supply agreement. In May 2015, the court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss the FTC’s claim as to Teva. The FTC’s motions for reconsideration and for entry of partial final judgment to permit an immediate appeal were denied, so the FTC cannot appeal the dismissal until its claims against AbbVie are resolved. The Court granted the FTC’s summary judgment motion that AbbVie’s patent infringement lawsuit against Teva in the AndroGel patent litigation was objectively baseless. A bench trial for the FTC’s case against AbbVie began in February 2018 and concluded in April 2018. The court has not yet issued its decision.

Since May 2015, two lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by a purported class of direct purchasers of, and a purported class of end payers for, Namenda IR^® (memantine hydrochloride) against Forest Laboratories, LLC (“Forest”) and Actavis PLC, the innovator, and several generic manufacturers, including Teva. Teva is only a defendant in the end payer case and defendants moved to dismiss the claims made by the end payers. The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the settlement agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers (including Forest’s November 2009 settlement agreement with Teva) violated the antitrust laws. On September 13, 2016, the court denied defendants’ motions to dismiss, but stayed the cases with respect to the claims brought under state law, which are the only claims asserted against Teva. Annual sales of Namenda IR^® at the time of the settlement were approximately $1.1 billion, and are currently approximately $1.4 billion.

On March 8, 2016 and April 11, 2016, certain Actavis subsidiaries in the United Kingdom, including Auden Mckenzie Holdings Limited, received notices from the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) that it had launched formal investigations under Section 25 of the Competition Act of 1998 (“Competition Act”) into suspected breaches of competition law in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets. On December 16, 2016, the CMA issued a statement of objections (a provisional finding of infringement of the Competition Act) in respect of certain allegations against Actavis UK and Allergan, which was later reissued to include certain Auden Mckenzie entities. A response was submitted and an oral hearing was held. On December 18, 2017, the CMA issued a Statement of Draft Penalty Calculation. A response was submitted and an oral hearing was held. No final decision regarding infringement of competition law has yet been issued by the CMA. On March 3, 2017, the CMA issued a second statement of objection in respect of certain additional allegations (relating to the same products and covering part of the same time period as for the first statement of objections) against Actavis UK, Allergan, and a number of other companies, which was later reissued to include certain Auden Mckenzie entities. A response was submitted and an oral hearing was held. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, pursuant to which Teva will indemnify Accord Healthcare for fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court on Actavis UK as a result of the investigations in respect of conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In the event of any such fines or damages, Teva expects to assert claims, including claims for breach of warranty, against the sellers of Auden Mckenzie. The terms of the purchase agreement may preclude a full recovery by Teva. A liability for this matter has been recorded in purchase accounting related to the acquisition of Actavis Generics. Further to our Master Purchase Agreement with Allergan whereby Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan for liabilities related to acquired assets, Teva agreed with Allergan to settle and release Teva’s indemnity claim and Allergan’s potential losses arising from the CMA in connection with this matter, pursuant to the agreement the parties entered into on January 31, 2018. See note 3.

In November 2016, three putative indirect purchaser class actions were filed in federal courts in Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Florida against Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire LLC (collectively, “Shire”) and Actavis, alleging that Shire’s 2013 patent litigation settlement with Actavis related to the ADHD drug Intuniv^® (guanfacine) violated various state consumer protection and antitrust laws. On December 30, 2016 and January 11, 2017, two additional similar actions were filed, also in Massachusetts federal court, against Shire and Actavis or Teva (as successor to Actavis) by putative classes of direct purchaser plaintiffs. All five cases are now in Massachusetts federal court, and on March 10, 2017, both the indirect purchaser plaintiffs and the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints. Annual sales of Intuniv^® were approximately $335 million at the time of the settlement, and approximately $327 million at the time generic competition began in 2014.

Government Investigations and Litigation Relating to Pricing and Marketing

Teva is involved in government investigations and litigation arising from the marketing and promotion of its pharmaceutical products in the United States. Many of these investigations originate through what are known as qui tamcomplaints, in which the government reviews a complaint filed under seal by a whistleblower (a “relator”) that alleges violations of the federal False Claims Act. The government considers whether to investigate the allegations and will, in many cases, issue subpoenas requesting documents and other information, including conducting witness interviews. The government must decide whether to intervene and pursue the claims as the plaintiff. Once a decision is made by the government, the complaint is unsealed. If the government decides not to intervene, then the relator may decide to pursue the lawsuit on his own without the active participation of the government.

A number of state attorneys general have filed various actions against Teva and/or certain of its subsidiaries, including certain Actavis subsidiaries, relating to reimbursements or drug price reporting under Medicaid or other programs. Such price reporting is alleged to have caused governments and others to pay inflated reimbursements for covered drugs. Teva and its subsidiaries have reached settlements in most of these cases, and remain parties to active litigation in Illinois. The Actavis subsidiaries remain parties to active litigation in Illinois and Utah. A provision for the cases has been included in the financial statements. Trial in the Illinois case against Teva concluded in the fourth quarter of 2013, and post-trial briefing was submitted. On June 28, 2017, after several years, the court issued a Memorandum Order After Trial finding liability against Teva, but reserved its decision on damages. Teva denies any liability and sought reconsideration of the order, which was denied. A hearing on damages is scheduled for August 8, 2018. The State of Illinois is seeking approximately $90 million in compensatory damages. Any such damages ultimately awarded by the court are subject to automatic trebling. In addition, the state is seeking statutory penalties ranging from $362 million to approximately $1.2 billion. Teva will continue to argue that any damages and penalties should be significantly less than the amount sought by the state. In August 2013, in the Mississippi case against Watson, the court ruled in favor of the state, awarding $12.4 million in compensatory damages and civil penalties. In March 2014, the court awarded the state an additional $17.9 million in punitive damages. A provision for these amounts has been included in the financial statements. Watson appealed both the original and the punitive damage awards. On January 11, 2018, the Mississippi Supreme Court affirmed the judgment in favor of the State of Mississippi and against Watson in all respects. On February 9, 2018, the judgment was fully satisfied and on February 16, 2018, the trial court discharged the appeal bond fully concluding this matter. In Utah, claims against Watson that were dismissed in their entirety by the trial court are now on appeal.

Several qui tam complaints have been unsealed in recent years as a result of government decisions not to participate in the cases. The following is a summary of certain government investigations, qui tam actions and related matters.

In January 2014, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York seeking documents and information from January 1, 2006 related to sales, marketing and promotion of COPAXONE and AZILECT, focusing on educational and speaker programs. The demand states that the government is investigating possible civil violations of the federal False Claims Act. In March 2015, the docket in this matter and a False Claims Act civil qui tam complaint concerning this matter were unsealed by the court, which revealed that the U.S. Attorney had notified the court in November 2014 that it had declined to intervene in and proceed with the lawsuit. The qui tam relators, however, are moving forward with the lawsuit. In June 2015, Teva filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In February 2016, the court stayed its decision on the relators’ claims based on state and local laws, denied Teva’s motions to dismiss the False Claims Act claims, and instructed the relators to amend their complaint with additional information. In March 2016, the relators filed an amended complaint, which Teva answered in April 2016. The parties are currently engaged in discovery.

Beginning in May 2014 various complaints have been filed with respect to opioid sales and distribution against various Teva affiliates, along with several other pharmaceutical companies, by a number of cities, counties, states and agencies across the country. There are actions currently pending against Teva and its affiliates that have been brought by various states, subdivisions and state agencies in both State and Federal Courts. Most of the Federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio. In addition to the complaints filed by states, state agencies and political subdivisions, private class action lawsuits have been filed in Arkansas, Massachusetts, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Several counties in various states and the State of Delaware have commenced an action against Anda, Inc. (and other distributor and manufacturer defendants) alleging that Anda, Inc. failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other than legitimate medical purposes. The complaints, asserting claims under similar provisions of different state law, generally contend that the defendants allegedly engaged in improper marketing and distribution of opioids, including ACTIQ^® and FENTORA and seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. None of the complaints specifies the exact amount of damages at issue. Teva and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or will be filing motions to dismiss where possible. On April 11, 2018, the judge in the multidistrict litigation issued a case management order setting the first trial for March 2019. On April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from the DOJ seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale of opioids. Teva intends to comply with this subpoena. In addition, a number of State Attorneys General, including a coordinated multistate effort, have initiated investigations into sales and marketing practices of Teva and its affiliates with respect to opioids. Teva is cooperating with these investigations, which are ongoing, and cannot predict at this time the outcome.

On June 21, 2016, Teva USA received a subpoena from the Antitrust Division of the DOJ seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain of Teva USA’s generic products and communications with competitors about such products. Actavis received a similar subpoena in June 2015. On July 12, 2016, Teva USA received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. Actavis has also received a similar subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General. Teva and Actavis are cooperating fully with these subpoenas.

On December 15, 2016, a civil action was brought by the attorneys general of twenty states against Teva USA and several other companies asserting claims under federal antitrust law (specifically, section 1 of the Sherman Act) alleging price fixing of generic products in United States. An amended complaint was filed on March 1, 2017 adding twenty additional states to the named plaintiffs and adding supplemental state law claims. The states seek a finding that the defendants’ actions violated federal antitrust law, and state antitrust and consumer protection laws, as well as injunctive relief, disgorgement, damages on behalf of various state and governmental entities and consumers, civil penalties and costs. On August 3, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”) transferred this action to the generic drug multidistrict litigation pending in federal court in Pennsylvania, which is discussed in greater detail below. On July 17, 2017, a new complaint was filed in the District Court of Connecticut on behalf of four additional states – Arkansas, Missouri, New Mexico and West Virginia, as well as the District of Columbia. These plaintiffs were not previously party to the State Attorney General action that commenced in December 2016. This complaint, which the JPML has also transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation discussed below, makes the same factual allegations and claims that are at issue in the earlier State Attorneys General complaint. On October 31, 2017 the attorneys general of 45 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint in this action. The proposed amended complaint names Actavis as a defendant as well as Teva, and adds new allegations and claims to those appearing in the prior complaints. Defendants have opposed the motion.

Beginning on March 2, 2016, numerous complaints have been filed in the United States on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of several generic drug products, as well as several individual direct purchaser opt-outplaintiffs. These complaints, which allege that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix, increase, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of the generic drug products named, have been brought against various defendants including, among others, Teva USA, Actavis Holdco U.S., Inc., Actavis Elizabeth and Pliva, Inc. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and damages under various state laws. On April 6, 2017, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) entered an order transferring cases brought by classes of direct or indirect purchasers and alleging claims of generic price-fixing for coordination or consolidation with the multidistrict litigation currently pending in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the panel subsequently transferred further cases to that court, and the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on August 15, 2017. Defendants moved to dismiss certain of those consolidated amended complaints on October 6, 2017. In February 2018, the court overseeing the multidistrict litigation lifted the stay of discovery on a limited basis to allow for document discovery and non-merits based depositions. Teva denies having engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability with respect to the above-mentioned subpoenas and civil suits.

On March 21, 2017, Teva received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting documents related to Teva’s donations to patient assistance programs. Teva is cooperating fully in responding to the subpoena.

For several years, Teva had conducted a voluntary worldwide investigation into business practices that may have implications under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”), following the receipt, beginning in 2012, of subpoenas and informal document requests from the SEC and the DOJ with respect to compliance with the FCPA in certain countries. In December 2016, Teva reached a resolution with the SEC and DOJ to fully resolve these FCPA matters. The resolution, which relates to conduct in Russia, Mexico and Ukraine from 2007 to 2013, provides for penalties of approximately $519 million (reserved in the financial statements in the third quarter of 2016), which includes a fine, disgorgement and prejudgment interest; a three-year deferred prosecution agreement for Teva; a guilty plea by Teva’s Russian subsidiary to criminal charges of violations of the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA; consent to entry of a final judgment against Teva settling civil claims of violations of the anti-bribery, internal controls and books and records provisions of the FCPA; and the retention of an independent compliance monitor for a period of three years. The SEC civil consent and DOJ deferred prosecution agreement have each obtained court approval.

Following the resolution, Teva has had requests for documents and information from various Russian government entities. In December 2016, Teva was informed by Israeli authorities that they had initiated an investigation into the conduct that was the subject of the FCPA investigation and which resulted in the above-mentioned resolution with the SEC and DOJ. On January 14, 2018, Teva and the Government of Israel entered into an arrangement for the Contingent Cessation of Proceedings pursuant to the Israeli Securities Law that ends the investigation into such conduct against the Company and provides for a payment of 75 million New Israeli Shekels (approximately $22 million).

Shareholder Litigation

On November 6, 2016 and December 27, 2016, two putative securities class actions were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Teva and certain of its current and former officers. After those two lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, the court appointed the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan Board as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff then filed a consolidated amended complaint purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017. The consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs, and it asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated the federal securities laws and Israeli securities laws in connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose Teva’s participation in an alleged anticompetitive scheme to fix prices and allocate markets for generic drugs in the United States. On December 1, 2017, Teva and the current and former officer and director defendants filed motions to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, with prejudice. On April 3, 2017, the Court granted the motions to dismiss without prejudice. A second amended complaint is expected with renewed dismissal briefing.

On July 17, 2017, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio derivatively on behalf of the Teva Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and alternatively as a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of individuals who purchased Teva stock through that plan. That lawsuit seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest and costs. The complaint alleges that Teva failed to maintain adequate financial controls based on the facts underpinning Teva’s FCPA deferred prosecution agreement, and also based on allegations substantially similar to those in the putative class action securities lawsuit pending in U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, discussed above. On November 29, 2017, the Court granted Teva’s motion to transfer the litigation to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut where the putative class action securities lawsuit is pending. On December 29, 2017, the parties jointly moved to stay the case pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative securities class action described above.

On August 3, 2017, a securities lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut by OZ ELS Master Fund, Ltd., OZ Special Funding, L.P, OZ Enhanced Master Fund, Ltd., Gordel Capital Limited, OZ Global Equity Opportunities Master Fund, Ltd., OZ Master Fund, Ltd., and OZ Global Special Investments Master Fund L.P. The complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws in connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose Teva’s participation in an alleged anticompetitive scheme to fix prices and allocate markets for generic drugs in the United States. On August 30, 2017, the court entered an order deferring all deadlines pending the resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative securities class action described above.

On August 21, 2017, a putative class action securities lawsuit was filed by Elliot Grodko in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. The complaint alleged that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated the federal securities laws and Israeli securities laws by making false and misleading statements in connection with Teva’s acquisition and integration of Actavis Generics. On April 10, 2018, the Court granted Teva’s motion to transfer this action to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers securities litigation is currently pending.

On August 30, 2017, a putative securities class action was filed by Barry Baker in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between November 15, 2016 and August 2, 2017 seeking unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. The complaint alleges that Teva and certain officers violated the federal securities laws by making false and misleading statements in connection with Teva’s acquisition and integration of Actavis Generics. On November 1, 2017, the Court consolidated the Baker case with the Grodko case, discussed above. On April 10, 2018, the Court granted Teva’s motion to transfer this action to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers securities litigation is currently pending.

Motions to approve derivative actions against certain past and present directors and officers have been filed in Israel with respect to alleged negligence and recklessness with respect to the acquisition of the Rimsa business and the acquisition of Actavis Generics. Motions for document disclosure prior to initiating derivatives were filed with respect to dividend distribution and executive compensation. Motions to approve securities class actions against Teva and certain of its current and former directors and officers were filed in Israel with allegations regarding proper disclosure of the above-mentioned pricing investigation as well as lack of disclosure of negative developments in the generic sector and erosion of the prices of Teva’s products as were presented in the second quarter financial reporting of Teva. Other motions were filed in Israel to approve a derivative action, discovery and a class action related to alleged claims regarding Teva’s above-mentioned FCPA resolution with the SEC and DOJ.

Environmental Matters

Teva or its subsidiaries are party to a number of environmental proceedings, or have received claims, including under the federal Superfund law or other federal, provincial or state and local laws imposing liability for alleged noncompliance, or for the investigation and remediation of releases of hazardous substances and for natural resource damages. Many of these proceedings and claims seek to require the generators of hazardous wastes disposed of at a third party-owned site, or the party responsible for a release of hazardous substances that impacted a site, to investigate and cleanup the site or to pay or reimburse others for such activities, including for oversight by governmental authorities and any related damages to natural resources. Teva or its subsidiaries have received claims, or been made a party to these proceedings, along with others, as an alleged generator of wastes that were disposed of or treated at third-party waste disposal sites, or as a result of an alleged release from one of Teva’s facilities or former facilities.

Although liability among the responsible parties, under certain circumstances, may be joint and several, these proceedings are frequently resolved so that the allocation of cleanup and other costs among the parties reflects the relative contributions of the parties to the site conditions and takes into account other pertinent factors. Teva’s potential liability varies greatly at each of the sites; for some sites the costs of the investigation, cleanup and natural resource damages have not yet been determined, and for others Teva’s allocable share of liability has not been determined. At other sites, Teva has taken an active role in identifying those costs, to the extent they are identifiable and estimable, which do not include reductions for potential recoveries of cleanup costs from insurers, indemnitors, former site owners or operators or other potentially responsible parties. In addition, enforcement proceedings relating to alleged violations of federal, state, commonwealth or local requirements at some of Teva’s facilities may result, in the imposition of significant penalties (in amounts not expected to materially adversely affect Teva’s results of operations) and the recovery of certain costs and natural resource damages, and may require that corrective actions and enhanced compliance measures be implemented.

Other Matters

On February 1, 2018, former shareholders of Ception Therapeutics, Inc. a company that was acquired by and merged into Cephalon in 2010, prior to Cephalon’s acquisition by Teva, filed breach of contract and other related claims against the Company, Teva USA and Cephalon in the Delaware Court of Chancery. Among other things, the plaintiffs allege that Cephalon breached the terms of the 2010 Ception-Cephalon merger agreement by failing to exercise commercially reasonable efforts to develop and commercialize CINQAIR^® (reslizumab) for the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE). The plaintiffs claim damages of at least $200 million, an amount they allege is equivalent to the milestones payable to the former shareholders of Ception in the event Cephalon were to obtain regulatory approval for EE in the United States ($150 million) and Europe ($50 million). All defendants have moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint, and filed briefs in support of their motions on April 10, 2018.