NOTE 13—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES:

a.	Commitments:

Operating leases:

As of December 31, 2018, minimum future rentals under operating leases of buildings, machinery and equipment for periods in excess of one year were as follows: 2019—$193 million; 2020—$154 million; 2021—$118 million; 2022—$91 million; 2023—$66 million; 2024 and thereafter—$283 million.

The lease fees expensed in each of the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 were $175 million, $200 million and $164 million, respectively.

Royalty commitments:

The Company is committed to pay royalties to owners of know-how, partners in alliances and other certain arrangements and to parties that financed research and development, at a wide range of rates as a percentage of sales or of the gross margin of certain products, as defined in the underlying agreements.

Until September 30, 2018, royalty expenses were reported in cost of goods sold if related to the acquisition of a product, and if not, such expenses are included in S&M expenses. Commencing October 1, 2018, royalty expenses are retroactively reported entirely under cost of goods sold. Royalty expenses in each of the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 were $536 million, $956 million and $814 million, respectively. See note 1bb.

Milestone commitments:

Teva has committed to make potential future milestone payments to third parties under various agreements. These payments are contingent upon the occurrence of certain future events and, given the nature of these events, it is unclear when, if ever, Teva may be required to pay such amounts. As of December 31, 2018, if all milestones and targets, for compounds in phase 2 and more advanced stages of development, are achieved, the total contingent payments could reach an aggregate amount of up to $420 million.

b.	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.

For income tax contingencies, see note 15 to our consolidated financial statements.

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. 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. 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. Following post-trial motions filed by the parties, 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 also denied Teva’s motion seeking to overturn the jury verdict with respect to invalidity. On May 25, 2018, both parties filed an appeal. 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 was 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)”). At the time of Teva’s launch in 2015, annual sales of Velcade were approximately 94 million Canadian dollars. Additionally, 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. In 2017, Teva entered into an agreement with Janssen and Millennium which limits the damages payable by either party depending on the outcome of the infringement/impeachment action. As a result, the most Janssen and Millennium could recover is 200 million Canadian dollars plus post-judgment interest. In June 2018, the court ruled that Janssen and Millennium pay Teva 5 million Canadian dollars in Section 8 damages. Janssen and Millennium filed an appeal that is currently pending. If the decision is overturned on appeal, Teva could owe the capped damages set forth above. In addition to the potential damages that could be awarded, Teva could be ordered to cease sales of its bortezomib product.

On July 8, 2011, Helsinn sued Teva over its filing of an ANDA to market a generic version of palonosetron IV solution (the generic equivalent of Aloxi^®) and in November 2015, the District Court of New Jersey ruled against Teva. Teva appealed this decision and in May 2017, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s ruling and found the asserted patents invalid. In January 2018, full appellate review of that decision was denied. Helsinn filed an appeal with the US Supreme Court, which was granted. On January 22, 2019, the Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision finding the asserted patent invalid. Helsinn has no further opportunity to appeal this patent decision. Separately, in October 2014, Helsinn filed an additional claim on later-acquired patents. On January 30, 2018, the District Court of New Jersey denied Helsinn’s request for a preliminary injunction based on these later acquired patents. Teva launched its generic palonosetron IV solution after obtaining final regulatory approval on March 23, 2018. If Teva ultimately loses the case on the later-acquired patents discussed above, Teva may be ordered to cease sales of its generic product and/or pay damages to Helsinn. Aloxi^® annual U.S. sales as of November 2017 were $459 million.

In July 2015, Janssen sued Actavis and Teva (along with 10 other filers) over their filing of an ANDA to market their abiraterone acetate tablets, 250mg (generic versions of Zytiga^®). In August 2017, Janssen sued Teva over its ANDA filing to market a 500mg generic version of Zytiga. In both cases, Janssen asserted a method of treatment patent. In January 2018, following a petition for inter partes review, the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (“PTAB”) found the patent to be invalid. In October 2018, the New Jersey District Court also found the patent to be invalid. Both the District Court and PTAB decisions are currently on appeal. Teva launched its generic 250mg product in November 2018. If Teva ultimately loses this case, Teva may be ordered by the court to cease sales of its generic product and/or pay damages to Janssen. Annual U.S. sales of Zytiga at the time of generic entry were about $1.3B.

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 insurance it desires, or any 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 tripled 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 filed by a purported class of direct purchasers. Similar complaints were also filed by a purported class of indirect purchasers, certain 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. Teva has either settled or reached agreements in principle to settle with all of the plaintiffs in the Philadelphia Modafinil Action. 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.

Additionally, 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. 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 Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Watson”), now a Teva subsidiary, 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. On July 16, 2018, the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied. As a result, the three direct purchasers that had sought class certification can proceed as individual plaintiffs, but any other member of the proposed direct purchaser class will need to file a separate, individual lawsuit if it wishes to participate in the litigation. The court has ordered a bench trial on the FTC’s claims to commence on March 4, 2019, with a jury trial on the private plaintiffs’ claims to be scheduled thereafter. Annual sales of AndroGel^® 1% were approximately $350 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $140 million 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, in August 2017, the Third Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings. Annual sales of Effexor XR^® were approximately $2.6 billion at the time of settlement and at the time Teva launched its generic version of Effexor XR^® 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, but in June 2015, the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In December 2018, the court granted the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. GSK and Teva filed a petition with the Third Circuit, seeking immediate appellate review of the district court’s class certification ruling. That petition remains pending. Annual sales of Lamictal^® were approximately $950 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $2.3 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Lamictal^® 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 and, in December 2018, both the direct-purchaser class plaintiffs and indirect-purchaser class plaintiffs filed motions for class certification, which remain pending. 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. Defendants moved to strike the District Attorney’s claims for restitution and civil penalties to the extent not limited to alleged activity occurring in Orange County. The Superior Court denied that motion. The Court of Appeal subsequently reversed the decision and review of the Appellate Court decision is now pending before the California Supreme Court. Annual sales of Niaspan^® were approximately $416 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $1.1 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Niaspan^® 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. Teva settled the multidistrict litigation with the various plaintiff groups in the first quarter of 2018 and a provision was included in the financial statements. 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. The FTC later voluntarily dismissed those claims and refiled 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 its own complaint against Allergan and Watson, and that complaint was also assigned to the California federal court presiding over the multidistrict litigation. The California federal court stayed the claims brought by the FTC and the State of California pending resolution of a related declaratory judgment action in Pennsylvania federal court. That declaratory judgment action has since been dismissed, but the stay remains in place. Annual sales of Lidoderm^® at the time of the settlement were approximately $1.2 billion and 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. 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. Teva has settled with the putative classes of direct purchasers and end payers, as well as with the opt-out direct purchaser plaintiffs, and with two of the opt-out end payer plaintiffs. A provision with respect to the settlements was included in the financial statements. The district court overruled certain objections to the end payer settlement, including objections made by the Orange County District Attorney, and approved the settlement. The District Attorney subsequently appealed the court’s approval to the Second Circuit. Opt-outs from the end payer class have also appealed certain aspects of the court’s approval order to the Second Circuit. Those appeals remain pending. Annual sales of Aggrenox^® were approximately $340 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $455 million at the time Teva launched its authorized generic version of Aggrenox^® in July 2015.

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 Actoplus 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 violated the antitrust laws. The court dismissed the end payer lawsuits against all defendants in September 2015. 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 following the Second Circuit’s decision. Defendants moved to dismiss the direct purchasers’ complaint, and that motion remains pending. At the time of the settlement, annual sales of Actos^® and Actoplus Met were approximately $3.7 billion and approximately $500 million, respectively. At the time Teva launched its authorized generic version of Actos^® and Actoplus Met in August 2012, annual sales of Actos^® and Actoplus Met were approximately $2.8 billion and approximately $430 million, respectively.

In September 2014, the FTC sued AbbVie Inc. and certain of its affiliates (“AbbVie”) as well as 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 agreed to supply Teva with an authorized generic version of TriCor^®. 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 dismissed the FTC’s claim concerning the settlement and supply agreements, and thus dismissed Teva from the case entirely. The FTC proceeded with a separate claim against AbbVie alone and in June 2018, following a bench trial, the court held that AbbVie had violated the antitrust laws by filing sham patent infringement lawsuits against both Teva and Perrigo in the underlying AndroGel patent litigation. The court ordered AbbVie to pay $448 million in disgorgement but declined to award injunctive relief. The FTC has since filed a notice of appeal as to, among other things, the district court’s May 2015 dismissal of the FTC’s claim against Teva, referenced above.

In May 2015, a purported class of end payers for Namenda IR^® (memantine hydrochloride) filed a lawsuit against Forest Laboratories, LLC (“Forest”), the innovator, and several generic manufacturers, including Teva. The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that settlement agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers to resolve patent litigation over Namenda IR^® violated the antitrust laws. The court has denied defendants’ motions to dismiss and in September 2018 referred the parties to mediation. Annual sales of Namenda IR^® at the time of the settlement were approximately $1.1 billion and approximately $550 million at the time other manufacturers first launched generic versions of Namenda IR^® in July 2015.

On December 16, 2016, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a statement of objections (a provisional finding of infringement of the Competition Act) in respect of certain allegations against Allergan, Actavis UK and certain Auden Mckenzie entities alleging competition law breaches in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. On December 18, 2017, the CMA issued a Statement of Draft Penalty Calculation. No final decision regarding infringement of competition law has yet been issued. On March 3, 2017, the CMA issued a second statement of objections in respect of certain additional allegations (relating to the same products and covering part of the same time period as in the first statement of objections) against Actavis UK, Allergan and certain Auden Mckenzie entities. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, pursuant to which Teva will indemnify Accord Healthcare for potential fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court against Actavis UK as a result of the conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In addition, Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan against losses arising from this matter, pursuant to the agreement the parties entered into on January 31, 2018. See note 3. 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.

Since November 2016, several putative indirect purchaser and direct purchaser class actions were filed in federal courts in Wisconsin, Massachusetts and Florida against Shire U.S., Inc. and Shire LLC (collectively, “Shire”), Actavis and Teva, 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. All cases are now in Massachusetts federal court. Annual sales of Intuniv^® were approximately $335 million at the time of the settlement and approximately $327 million at the time Actavis launched its generic version of Intuniv^®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 tam complaints, 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 relating to reimbursements or drug price reporting under Medicaid or other programs. Such price reporting is alleged to have caused states and others to pay inflated reimbursements for covered drugs. Teva and its subsidiaries have reached settlements in most of these cases. On October 4, 2018, Teva settled longstanding litigation filed by the State of Illinois against subsidiaries of Teva and Watson for a total settlement amount of $135 million, the majority of which was paid in December of 2018. Teva accepted the settlement while denying any liability with respect to the claims made by the state. Pending the final settlement payment, the Illinois litigation is stayed. In August 2013, judgment was entered in a separate case brought by the State of Mississippi against Watson, pursuant to which Watson was ordered to pay compensatory damages amounting to $12.4 million. In March 2014, the Mississippi court amended the judgment to also include punitive damages in the amount of $17.9 million. The judgment was affirmed in all respects by the Mississippi Supreme Court in January 2018 and has since been satisfied in full. Certain Actavis subsidiaries remain parties to active litigation in Utah where previously dismissed claims against Watson are now on appeal. A provision for these cases has been included in the financial statements.

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 after the government declined to intervene. In February 2016, the court 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. In August 2018, Teva filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims, which is now pending before the court.

In January 2014, a qui tam complaint was filed in Rhode Island federal court alleging that Teva and several other defendants, including manufacturers of MS drugs and pharmacy benefit managers, violated the False Claims Act. The qui tam action was unsealed on April 4, 2018 after the government declined to intervene. The relator alleges that Teva and the other defendants induced fraudulent overpayments for illegitimate “Bona Fide Service Fees” in excess of fair market value to inflate prices for the Medicare Part D program. Teva moved to dismiss the complaint. The DOJ also moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that it lacked merit and was not in the government’s interest to continue. Both motions are pending.

In May 2017, a qui tam action was filed against a number of Teva subsidiaries. The qui tam action was unsealed on June 13, 2018 after the government declined to intervene. The relator in the case alleges that Teva violated the False Claims Act by devising and engaging in promotional schemes that violate the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), resulting in false certifications of compliance with the AKS. Specifically, the relator alleges that Teva paid in-kind remuneration to physicians through reimbursement support and nursing services in order to increase the number of COPAXONE prescriptions. An amended complaint was filed on October 15, 2018. Teva and the DOJ moved to dismiss the case. These motions are pending.

Since May 2014, approximately 1,500 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, other governmental agencies and private plaintiffs in both state and federal courts. Most of the federal cases have been consolidated into a multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of Ohio (“MDL Opioid Proceeding”) and many of the cases filed in state court have been removed to federal court and consolidated into the MDL Opioid Proceeding. 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^®. The complaints also assert claims related to Teva’s generic opioid products. In addition, several dozen complaints filed by cities, counties and the State of Delaware have named Anda, Inc. (and other distributors and manufacturers) alleging that Anda failed to develop and implement systems sufficient to identify suspicious orders of opioid products and prevent the abuse and diversion of such products to individuals who used them for other than legitimate medical purposes. Plaintiffs seek a variety of remedies, including restitution, civil penalties, disgorgement of profits, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and injunctive relief. Certain plaintiffs assert that the measure of damages is the entirety of the costs associated with addressing the abuse of opioids and opioid addiction. None of the complaints specify the exact amount of damages at issue; however, an adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties and could have a material and adverse effect on Teva’s reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows. Teva and its affiliates that are defendants in the various lawsuits deny all allegations asserted in these complaints and have filed or will file motions to dismiss where possible. On October 5, 2018, the magistrate judge in the MDL Opioid Proceeding issued a Report & Recommendation rejecting the first motion to dismiss, except for the common law public nuisance claim, which was dismissed. On December 19, 2018, the District Court judge overruled defendants’ objections to the Report & Recommendation. Motions to dismiss in eight additional similar cases remain pending. Discovery in the MDL Opioid Proceeding for the first track of cases is proceeding with a trial scheduled for October 2019. Other cases remain pending in various state courts, including Oklahoma, where a trial is scheduled to begin in May 2019, and where the plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. In some jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas, certain state court cases have been transferred to a single court within their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from the DOJ seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale of opioids. Teva is complying 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. Other states are conducting their own investigations outside of the multistate group. Teva is cooperating with these ongoing investigations and cannot predict the outcome at this time.

On June 21, 2016, Teva USA received a subpoena from the DOJ Antitrust Division seeking documents and other information relating to the marketing and pricing of certain Teva USA generic products and communications with competitors about such products. Actavis received a similar subpoena in June 2015. Teva and Actavis are cooperating with the DOJ subpoena requests. 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. In 2015, Actavis received a similar subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General.

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 alleging price fixing of generic products in the 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 action was transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania MDL”). On July 17, 2017, a new complaint was filed in the District Court of Connecticut on behalf of four additional states with the same factual allegations and claims that are at issue in the Pennsylvania MDL case. The complaint was subsequently transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. 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 and Teva as defendants, and adds new allegations and claims to those appearing in the prior complaints. Defendants have opposed the motion. On June 5, 2018, the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted the attorneys general’s motion to amend.

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-out plaintiffs. These complaints, which allege that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic products have been brought against various manufacturer defendants, including Teva and Actavis. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and damages under various state laws. On April 6, 2017, these cases were transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. Additional cases were transferred to that court and the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended complaints on August 15, 2017. On October 16, 2018, the court denied certain of the defendants’ motions to dismiss. Teva and Actavis deny having engaged in any conduct that would give rise to liability with respect to the above-mentioned complaints.

In May 2018, Teva received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ Civil Division, pursuant to the federal False Claims Act, seeking documents and information produced since January 1, 2009 relevant to the Civil Division’s investigation concerning allegations that generic pharmaceutical manufacturers, including Teva, engaged in market allocation and price-fixing agreements, paid illegal remuneration, and caused false claims to be submitted in violation of the False Claims Act. Teva is cooperating with this subpoena.

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 in responding to the subpoena.

In December 2016, Teva resolved certain claims under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) with the SEC and the DOJ, as more fully described in Teva’s 2017 Annual Report. The settlement included a fine, disgorgement and prejudgment interest; a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (“DPA”) for Teva and the retention of an independent compliance monitor for a period of three years. If, during the term of the DPA (approximately three years unless extended), the DOJ determines that Teva has committed a felony under federal law, provided deliberately false or misleading information or otherwise breached the DPA, Teva could be subject to prosecution and additional fines or penalties, including the deferred charges. Following the above resolution with the SEC and DOJ, Teva has had requests for documents and information from various Russian government entities. In addition, on January 14, 2018, Teva entered into an arrangement for the Contingent Cessation of Proceedings pursuant to the Israeli Securities Law with the Government of Israel that ended the investigation of the Israeli government into the conduct that was subject to the FCPA investigation, and provided a payment of 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 and directors. 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 “Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation”). The lead plaintiff then filed a consolidated amended complaint. On April 3, 2018, the court dismissed the case without prejudice. Lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on June 22, 2018, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and August 3, 2017. The second complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities laws in connection with Teva’s alleged failure to disclose pricing strategies for various drugs in its generic drug portfolio and by making allegedly false or misleading statements in certain offering materials issued during the class period. The second complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. Teva and the current and former officer and director defendants filed motions to dismiss the second complaint on September 14, 2018. Those motions are pending before the court.

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 DPA and also based on allegations substantially similar to those in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. 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 Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is pending. On February 12, 2018, the district court stayed 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. and related entities. 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 Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation described above.

On August 21 and 30, 2017, Elliot Grodko and Barry Baker filed putative securities class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania purportedly 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 complaints allege 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 November 1, 2017, the court consolidated the Baker and Grodko cases. On April 10, 2018, the court granted Teva’s motion to transfer the consolidated action to the District of Connecticut where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is currently pending.

Between August 2018 and February 2019, nine complaints were filed against Teva and current and former officer and director defendants seeking unspecified compensatory and rescissory damages, legal fees, costs and expenses. The allegations in these complaints are substantially similar to the allegations in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation, but have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs that have “opted out” of the putative class in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. The plaintiffs in these “opt-out” cases filed their complaints in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Teva and the current and former officer and director defendants filed or will file motions to transfer the cases filed in Pennsylvania to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, where the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation is pending. The cases filed in Connecticut have been or will request to be stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss filed in the consolidated putative securities class action described above.

Motions to approve derivative actions against certain past and present directors and officers have been filed in Israel alleging 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 derivative actions were filed with respect to dividend distribution, executive compensation, several patent settlement agreements and the U.S. price-fixing investigations. Motions to approve securities class actions against Teva and certain of its current and former directors and officers were filed in Israel based on allegations of improper disclosure of the above-mentioned pricing investigation, as well as lack of disclosure of negative developments in the generic sector, including price erosion with respect to Teva’s products. Other motions were filed in Israel to approve a derivative action, discovery and a class action related to 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 clean 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 clean-up 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, clean-up 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 clean-up 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). Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and on December 28, 2018, the court granted the motion in part and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for their claim against Cephalon for breach of contract.