XML 26 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and contingencies | NOTE 10 – 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. 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. Teva could also be sued for patent infringement outside of the context of the Hatch-Waxman Act. For example, Teva could be sued for patent infringement after commencing sales of a product. In addition, for biosimilar products, Teva could be sued according to the “patent dance” procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). 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 or a multiplier for willfulness. 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. The provision that was originally included in the financial statements following the damages verdict in this matter was reversed following the opinion overturning the verdict as the exposure was no longer considered probable. A hearing on an appeal filed by both parties was held on September 4, 2019 and Teva awaits the Court’s 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. 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, which was denied by the appellate court on November 4, 2019. On January 3, 2020, Janssen and Millennium applied for leave to appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court. If the decision is ultimately overturned, 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. 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 U.S. 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. Beginning 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 with allegations 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 cases also allege that Cephalon improperly asserted its PROVIGIL patent against the generic pharmaceutical companies. 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 plaintiffs in such cases, except for an action brought by the State of Louisiana. The settlement with the State of California that was reached in 2019 is still pending final court approval. All settlements entered into in connection with the above proceeding are covered by the settlement fund explained below. In May 2015, Cephalon entered into a consent decree with the FTC (the “Modafinil Consent Decree”) 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. The settlement fund does not cover any judgments or settlements outside the United States. Under the Modafinil 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 remaining balance of the settlement fund after consideration of the settlement with the State of California noted above is approximately $19 million. In February 2019, in connection with the settlement of other unrelated FTC antitrust lawsuits, as described below, Teva and the FTC agreed to amend certain non-financial provisions of the Modafinil Consent Decree and to restart its ten-year term. Additionally, following an investigation initiated by the European Commission in April 2011 regarding a modafinil patent settlement in Europe, the European 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 liability has yet been taken by the European Commission. The sales of modafinil in the European Economic Area during the last full year of the alleged breach amounted to € 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”), from which Teva later acquired certain assets and liabilities, 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 retailer plaintiffs filing separately) and the various actions were consolidated in a multidistrict litigation in Georgia federal court. On February 22, 2019, the FTC stipulated to the dismissal of its claims against Watson, in exchange for Teva’s agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree, as described above. Teva also settled with most of the retailer plaintiffs in April 2019. On July 16, 2018, the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification was denied, and in December 2019, Teva reached a settlement agreement with the three direct purchasers that had sought class certification. Settlement amounts were paid in full. In addition, in August 2019, certain other direct-purchaser plaintiffs (who would have been members of the direct purchaser class, had it been certified) filed their own claims in federal court in Philadelphia, challenging (in one complaint) both the September 2006 settlement between Watson and Solvay referenced above, as well as Teva’s December 2011 settlement with AbbVie involving AndroGel ® and TriCor ® , referenced below. 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. A provision for this case was included in the financial statements. 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 U.S. 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. In March 2020, the district court temporarily stayed discovery and referred the case to mediation. 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 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. In December 2018, the district court granted the direct-purchaser plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, but on April 22, 2020, the Third Circuit reversed that ruling and remanded for further class certification proceedings. 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 purchasers’ class and, in August 2019, the district court certified the direct-purchaser class, although the court has yet to rule on the indirect purchasers’ pending motion for class certification. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint in California state court, which has since been amended, 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 Appeals 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. Beginning in 2013, several putative class actions were filed 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. The cases were consolidated as a multidistrict litigation in federal court in California and were settled in 2018. The FTC also filed suit to challenge the Lidoderm ® settlement, although in February 2019, the FTC dismissed its claims against Actavis and Allergan, in exchange for Teva’s agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree, as described above. In July 2019, Teva also settled a complaint brought by the State of California. On September 16, 2019, end-payers Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan and Blue Care Network of Michigan filed their own lawsuit against Watson, and other defendants, in Michigan state court and that lawsuit remains pending. On January 24, 2020, the State of Mississippi filed a lawsuit against Teva and Watson in Mississippi state court, which the defendants have moved to dismiss, which motion remains pending. 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-payers’ 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, but on October 8, 2019, the district court dismissed, with prejudice, the direct purchasers’ claims against the generic manufacturers (including Teva, Actavis, and Watson). 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 federal court in Philadelphia alleging that they violated the antitrust laws by entering into a December 2011 settlement agreement to resolve the patent litigation on AndroGel ® and a supply agreement under which AbbVie agreed to supply Teva with an authorized generic version of TriCor ® . 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, secured a $448 million judgement against AbbVie. The FTC then filed a notice of appeal, including as to the claims against Teva that had been dismissed by the district court, but in February 2019, the FTC stipulated to dismiss Teva from its appeal, in exchange for Teva’s agreement to amend the Modafinil Consent Decree, as described above. In August 2019, two groups of direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed similar claims against AbbVie and Teva, in the same federal court in Philadelphia where the FTC’s claims had been pending. In December 2019, Teva reached a settlement agreement with one group of plaintiffs. The second group’s claims challenge both Teva’s December 2011 settlement with AbbVie and the September 2006 AndroGel ® settlement between Watson and Solvay, referenced above. Those claims remain pending. 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. In November 2019, two additional plaintiffs filed a similar lawsuit – purportedly as opt-outs from the end payers’ class – against the same defendants. These lawsuits allege, among other things, that settlement agreements between Forest and the generic manufacturers to resolve patent litigation over Namenda IR ® violated the antitrust laws. 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. In January 2019, generic manufacturer Cipla Limited filed a lawsuit against Amgen in Delaware federal court, alleging, among other things, that a January 2, 2019 settlement agreement between Amgen and Teva, resolving patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic Sensipar ® ), violated the antitrust laws. In March 2019, Cipla Limited amended its complaint to name Teva as an additional defendant, and putative classes of direct-purchaser and end-payer plaintiffs have also filed antitrust lawsuits (which have since been consolidated in federal court in Delaware) against Amgen and Teva related to the January 2, 2019 settlement. Both Cipla Limited and the putative class plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief and the defendants moved to dismiss their claims on October 15, 2019. Those motions remain pending. Annual sales of Sensipar ® in the United States were approximately $1.4 billion at the time Teva launched its generic version of Sensipar ® in December 2018, and at the time of the January 2, 2019 settlement. On December 16, 2016, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a statement of objections (a provisional finding of breach 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. On March 3, 2017 and February 28, 2019, the CMA issued second and third statements of objections in respect of certain additional allegations relating to the same products and covering part of the same time periods as in the first statement of objections. On February 12, 2020, the CMA issued a supplementary statement of objections effectively combining the three previously issued statements referenced above. On January 9, 2017, Teva completed the sale of Actavis UK to Accord Healthcare Limited, in connection with which Teva will indemnify Accord Healthcare for potential fines imposed by the CMA and/or damages awarded by a court against Actavis UK in relation to the December 16, 2016 and March 3, 2017 statements of objections, and resulting from conduct prior to the closing date of the sale. In addition, Teva agreed to indemnify Allergan against losses arising from this matter in the event of any such fines or damages. A liability for this matter has been recorded in the financial statements. 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. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received subpoenas from the U.S. Department of Justice (“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. 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 these subpoena requests. In 2015 and 2016, Actavis and Teva USA each respectively received a subpoena from the Connecticut Attorney General seeking documents and other information relating to potential state antitrust law violations. Subsequently, 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. That complaint was later amended to add new states as named plaintiffs, as well as new allegations and new state law claims, and on June 18, 2018, the attorneys general of 49 states plus Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia filed a consolidated amended complaint against Actavis and Teva, as well as other companies and individuals. On May 10, 2019, most (though not all) of these attorneys general filed yet another antitrust complaint against Actavis, Teva and other companies and individuals, alleging price-fixing and market allocation with respect to additional generic products. On November 1, 2019, the state attorneys general filed an amended complaint, bringing the total number of plaintiff states and territories to 54. The amended complaint alleges that Teva was at the center of a conspiracy in the generic pharmaceutical industry, and asserts that Teva and others fixed prices, rigged bids, and allocated customers and market share with respect to certain additional products, many of which were not previously at issue in the Pennsylvania MDL. In the various complaints described above, 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. All such complaints have been transferred to the generic drug multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (“Pennsylvania MDL”). 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 and indirect 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 as to certain federal claims, and on February 15, 2019, the court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motions to dismiss as to certain state law claims. On July 18, 2019, certain individual plaintiffs commenced a civil action in the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis, but no complaint has been filed and the case has been placed in deferred status. On November 13, 2019, several counties in New York commenced a civil action against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis, and the complaint has been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. On March 1, 2020, Harris County in Texas filed a complaint against several generic manufacturers including Teva and Actavis in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas. This complaint largely mirrors certain allegations in the complaints in the Pennsylvania MDL. This case has not been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. 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. 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. In February 2020 the term of the monitorship provided for by the DPA and Teva’s consent judgement with the SEC expired and on March 4, 2020, following Teva’s certification to the SEC and the DOJ confirming that Teva had complied with its disclosure obligations under the DPA, the DOJ filed a motion to dismiss the information filed against Teva at the time the DPA was entered into. Opioids Litigation Since May 2014, more than 2,900 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, tribes and private plaintiffs (including various putative class actions of individuals) 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. Other cases remain pending in various states. In some jurisdictions, such as Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia, certain state court cases have been transferred to a single court within their respective state court systems for coordinated pretrial proceedings. 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, personal injury plaintiffs, including various putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal injury and wrongful death claims. Furthermore, approximately 600 complaints 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 and certain plaintiffs specify multiple billions of dollars in the aggregate as alleged damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. An adverse resolution of any of these lawsuits or investigations may involve large monetary penalties, damages, and/or other forms of monetary and non-monetary relief and could have a material and adverse effect on Teva’s reputation, business, results of operations and cash flows. Absent resolutions, trials are expected to proceed in several states in 2020 and 2021. A court in New York had set a date, for a liability trial only, to start in March 2020. However, that trial has been postponed due to the impact of COVID-19. A new trial date has not been set. It is also anticipated that a court in California may reset a trial date, most recently scheduled for June 2020, to the second half of 2020. It is difficult to predict when or if trials will occur in 2020 given the current impact of COVID-19 on the United States and the U.S. judicial system. In May 2019, Teva settled the Oklahoma litigation brought by the Oklahoma Attorney General (State of Oklahoma, ex. rel. Mike Hunter, Attorney General of Oklahoma vs. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) for $85 million. The settlement did not include any admission of violation of law for any of the claims or allegations made. As the Company demonstrated a willingness to settle part of the litigation, for accounting purposes, management considered a portion of opioid-related cases as probable and, as such, recorded an estimated provision in the second quarter of 2019. Given the relatively early stage of the cases, management viewed no amount within the range to be the most likely outcome. Therefore, management recorded a provision for the reasonably estimable minimum amount in the assessed range for such opioid-related cases in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies.” On October 21, 2019, Teva reached a settlement with the two plaintiffs in the MDL Opioid Proceeding that was scheduled for trial for the Track One case, Cuyahoga and Summit Counties of Ohio. Under the terms of the settlement, Teva will provide the two counties with opioid treatment medication, buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets), known by the brand name Suboxone ® , with a value of $25 million at wholesale acquisition cost and distributed over three years to help in the care and treatment of people suffering from addiction, and a cash payment in the amount of $20 million, to be paid in four payments over three years. Also on October 21, 2019, Teva and certain other defendants reached an agreement in principle with a group of Attorneys General from North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Texas for a nationwide settlement framework. The framework is designed to provide a mechanism by which the Company attempts to seek resolution of remaining potential and pending opioid claims by both the U.S. states and political subdivisions (i.e., counties, tribes and other plaintiffs) thereof. Under this agreement, Teva would provide buprenorphine naloxone (sublingual tablets) with an estimated value of up to approximately $23 billion at wholesale acquisition cost over a ten year period. In addition, Teva would also provide cash payments of up to $250 million over a ten year period. The Company cannot predict if the nationwide settlement framework will be finalized . Following these developments, the Company considered a range of potential settlement outcomes. No single outcome in the range was considered to be more likely than any other outcome; accordingly, in the third quarter of 2019, Teva accrued to the new low end of the range, resulting in an increase in Teva’s previously recorded estimated liability. There was no change in this estimate in the first quarter of 2020. Separately, on April 27, 2018, Teva received subpoena requests from the United States Attorney’s office in the Western District of Virginia and the Civil Division seeking documents relating to the manufacture, marketing and sale of branded opioids. In August 2019, Teva received a grand jury subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York for documents related to the Company’s anti-diversion policies and procedures and distribution of its opioid medications, in what the Company understands to be part of a broader investigation into manufacturers’ and distributors’ monitoring programs and reporting under the Controlled Substances Act. In September 2019, Teva received subpoenas from the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) as part of an industry-wide inquiry into the effect of opioid prescriptions on New York health insurance premiums. The Company is cooperating with NYDFS’s inquiry and producing documents in response to the various subpoenas and requests for information. Currently, Teva cannot predict how the nationwide settlement framework agreement (if finalized) will affect these investigations. 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 their outcome at this time. In addition, several jurisdictions in Canada have initiated litigation regarding opioids alleging similar claims as those in the United States. The cases in Canada are likely to be consolidated and are in their early stages. 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. Those lawsuits were consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (the “Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation”). On December 13, 2019, the lead plaintiff in that action filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019. The amended complaint asserts that Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors violated federal securities and common 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. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, legal fees, interest, and costs. In July 2017, August 2017, and June 2019, other putative securities class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar allegations, and those cases have been transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Between August 2017 and January 2020, eighteen complaints were filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors seeking unspecified compensatory damages, legal fees, costs and expenses. The similar claims in these complaints have been brought on behalf of plaintiffs, in various forums across the country, who have indicated that they intend to “opt-out” of the plaintiffs’ class if one is certified in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. On March 10, 2020, the Court consolidated the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation with all of the above-referenced putative class actions for all purposes and the “opt-out” cases for pretrial purposes. The case is now in discovery. 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 several settlement agreements, opioids 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. Various 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. The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle these proceedings and the settlement was approved by the Tel Aviv District Court on April 6, 2020. 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.

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration