XML 31 R19.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.23.1

Commitments and contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2023
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 reasonably 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 where the exposures were fully resolved in the prior year, or determined to no longer meet the materiality threshold for disclosure, or were substantially resolved. 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 data. Intellectual Property Litigation From time to time, Teva seeks to develop generic and biosimilar versions of patent-protected pharmaceuticals and biopharmaceuticals 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. For many biosimilar products that are covered by patents, Teva participates in the “patent dance” procedures of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”), which allow for the challenge to originator patents prior to obtaining biosimilar product approval. 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 or biosimilar version of the product 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 or BPCIA. For example, Teva could be sued for patent infringement after commencing sales of a product. This type of litigation can involve any of Teva’s pharmaceutical products, not just its generic and biosimilar products. 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”) filed claims against Teva in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for infringement of a patent 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. Thereafter, the court overturned the jury verdict, finding no induced infringement by Teva and that Teva did not owe any damages. On August 5, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a two-to-one decision reinstating the $ 235.5 million verdict and finding Teva liable for patent infringement. On February 11, 2022, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied rehearing. Teva appealed this decision to the U.S. Supreme Court on July 11, 2022. In response to Teva’s certiorari petition, on October 3, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order seeking the views of the U.S. Solicitor General as to whether to review this case. On March 29, 2023, the U.S. Solicitor General filed a brief recommending that the U.S. Supreme Court grant Teva’s request and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition to the pending U.S. Supreme Court proceedings, the case has been remanded to the district court for further proceedings on Teva’s other legal and equitable defenses that have not yet been considered by the district court. In the first quarter of 2021, Teva recognized a provision based on its offer to settle such matter. 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 types of insurance, 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 certain or all of its markets. Teva and its subsidiaries are parties to litigation relating to previously unknown nitrosamine impurities discovered in certain products. The discovery led to a global recall of single and combination valsartan medicines around the world starting in July 2018 and to subsequent recalls on other products. The nitrosamine impurities in valsartan are allegedly found in the active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”) supplied to Teva by multiple API manufacturers, including by Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd. (“Huahai”). Since July 2018, Teva has been actively engaged with global regulatory authorities in reviewing its sartan and other products to determine whether NDMA and/or other related nitrosamine impurities are present in specific products. Where necessary, Teva has initiated additional voluntary recalls. In December 2019, Teva reached a settlement with Huahai resolving Teva’s claims related to certain sartan API supplied by Huahai. Under the settlement agreement, Huahai agreed to compensate Teva for some of its direct losses and provide it with prospective cost reductions for API. The settlement does not release Huahai from liability for any losses Teva may incur as a result of third party personal injury or product liability claims relating to the sartan API at issue, as discussed below. In addition, multiple lawsuits have been filed in connection with this matter. Teva’s products allegedly at issue in the various nitrosamine-related litigations pending in the United States include valsartan, losartan, metformin and ranitidine. There are currently two Multi-District Litigations (“MDL”) pending in the United States District Courts against Teva and numerous other manufacturers. One MDL is pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for valsartan, losartan and irbesartan. Teva is not named in complaints with respect to irbesartan. The second MDL is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for ranitidine. The lawsuits against Teva in the MDLs consist of individual personal injury and/or product liability claims and economic damages claims brought by consumers and end payors on behalf of purported classes of other consumers and end payors as well as medical monitoring class claims. The judge in the valsartan MDL ordered that the first trial, likely commencing in late 2023 or early 2024, will involve third-party payor economic loss claims via a class representative on behalf of several subclasses of payors against Teva and two other defendants. On February 8, 2023, the district court in the valsartan MDL entered an order that certified a series of subclasses on plaintiffs’ economic loss claims and granted in part and denied in part the certification of a medical monitoring class. Defendants sought permission for appellate review of that decision, which was denied. In the ranitidine MDL, the generic manufacturers’ motions to dismiss have been granted, although certain plaintiffs have appeals pending. In addition, on December 6, 2022, the court in the ranitidine MDL granted the brand defendants’ motions to exclude all of plaintiffs’ general causation experts and granted summary judgment to the brand defendants on that ground. Teva, as well as other generic manufacturers, is also named in several state court actions asserting allegations similar to those in the ranitidine MDL and the valsartan and losartan MDL. State court valsartan and losartan actions are pending in New Jersey and Delaware and are currently stayed. State court ranitidine cases naming Teva are pending in coordinated proceedings in California, Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York, with motions to dismiss pending in Illinois, Pennsylvania and New York on preemption and other grounds. In addition to the valsartan and ranitidine MDLs and coordinated state court proceedings, Teva has also been named in a consolidated proceeding pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey brought by individuals and end payors seeking economic damages on behalf of purported classes of consumers and end payors who purchased Teva’s, as well as other generic manufacturers’ metformin products. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended metformin complaint from June 2021 was granted without prejudice with respect to the consumer economic loss plaintiffs, and granted in part and denied in part with respect to the end payor plaintiffs. Plaintiffs were granted leave to file a second amended complaint. Defendants’ motion to dismiss that complaint was granted in part and denied in part. Similar lawsuits are pending in Canada and Germany. 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 been named as defendants in cases that allege antitrust violations arising from such settlement agreements. The plaintiffs in these cases are usually direct and indirect purchasers of pharmaceutical products, some of whom assert claims on behalf of classes of all direct and indirect purchasers, and they typically allege that (i) Teva received something of value from the innovator in exchange for an agreement to delay generic entry, and (ii) significant savings could have been realized if there had been no settlement agreement and generic competition had commenced earlier. These plaintiffs 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 often 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 (“FTC”) v. Actavis, Inc., 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 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 November 2020, the European Commission issued a final decision in its proceedings against both Cephalon and Teva, finding that the 2005 settlement agreement between the parties had the object and effect of hindering the entry of generic modafinil, and imposed fines totaling euro 60.5 million on Teva and Cephalon. Teva and Cephalon filed an appeal against the decision in February 2021. A provision for this matter was included in the financial statements. Teva has provided the European Commission with a bank guarantee in the amount of the imposed fines. The hearing for the appeal took place in December 2022 and a decision is pending. In December 2011, three groups of plaintiffs filed claims against Wyeth and Teva for alleged violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their November 2005 settlement of patent litigation involving extended release venlafaxine (generic Effexor XR ® ). 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 March 2020, the district court temporarily stayed discovery and referred the case to mediation, and discovery remains stayed. 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 filed claims against 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 claimed that the settlement agreement unlawfully delayed generic entry and sought unspecified damages. On April 9, 2021, the district court, which had previously granted an initial motion for class certification by the direct purchaser plaintiffs but was reversed on that ruling by the Third Circuit in April 2020, denied the direct purchaser plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a further renewed motion for class certification on May 20, 2022, which was denied on February 1, 2023. On February 2, 2023, February 7, 2023, and February 27, 2023, a number of direct purchasers, who would otherwise have been members of the proposed class had it been certified, filed suit as individual plaintiffs in Pennsylvania’s federal court. 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) filed claims against 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. The court denied the indirect purchasers’ motion for class certification with prejudice, and on April 24, 2023, the denial was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In October 2016, the District Attorney for Orange County, California, filed a similar complaint in California state court, alleging violations of state law and seeking restitution and civil penalties. 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. 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 Teva’s 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. Putative classes of direct-purchaser and end-payer plaintiffs have filed antitrust lawsuits (which have since been coordinated in federal court in Delaware) against Amgen and Teva alleging that the January 2, 2019 settlement agreement between Amgen and Teva, resolving patent litigation over cinacalcet (generic Sensipar®), violated the antitrust laws. In March 2023, Teva moved for re-argument of its motion to certify the district court’s rulings denying Teva’s motion to dismiss in part for review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and is awaiting the court’s decision. 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. In August 2019, certain direct-purchaser plaintiffs filed claims in federal court in Philadelphia naming Teva and its affiliates as defendants alleging that certain patent litigation settlement agreements relating to AndroGel ® 1 % (testosterone gel) violate the antitrust laws, specifically the September 2006 patent litigation settlement between Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Watson”), from which Teva later acquired certain assets and liabilities, and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Solvay”), and a December 2011 settlement between Teva and AbbVie. Those claims remain pending. Annual sales of AndroGel ® 1 % were approximately $350 million at the time of the earlier Watson/Solvay settlement and approximately $140 million at the time Actavis launched its generic version of AndroGel ® 1 % in November 2015. A provision for these matters and related litigations in Georgia that have since been settled was included in the financial statements. Between September 1, 2020 and December 20, 2020, separate plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers and opt-out retailer purchasers of Bystolic ® (nebivolol hydrochloride) filed separate complaints in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against several generic manufacturers, including Teva, Actavis, and Watson, alleging, among other things, that the settlement agreements these generic manufacturers entered into with Forest Laboratories, Inc., the innovator, to resolve patent litigation over Bystolic ® violated the antitrust laws. The cases were coordinated and on January 24, 2022, the court dismissed plaintiffs’ amended complaints without prejudice. Plaintiffs subsequently filed second amended complaints, and on February 21, 2023, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed notices of their intent to appeal. Annual sales of Bystolic ® in the United States were approximately $700 million at the time of Watson’s 2013 settlement with Forest. In February 2021, the State of New Mexico filed a lawsuit against Teva and certain other defendants related to various medicines used to treat HIV. Between September and December 2021, several private plaintiffs including retailers and health insurance providers filed similar claims in federal court in the Northern District of California and in the District of Minnesota. As they relate to Teva, the lawsuits challenge settlement agreements Teva entered into with Gilead in 2013 and/or 2014 to resolve patent litigation relating to Teva’s generic versions of Viread ® and/or Truvada ® and Atripla ® . Plaintiffs allege that the settlement agreements contain improper reverse payments that delayed the availability of generic products, in violation of the federal antitrust laws and state law. On February 16, 2022, Teva moved to dismiss the claims by certain private plaintiffs but that motion was denied. However, Teva has successfully moved to limit the potential damages period as to certain private plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California cases have abandoned any claim for damages relating to the Viread ® settlement. On January 5, 2023, the court denied the parties’ motions for summary judgment. Trial is currently scheduled to commence in late May 2023. In the first quarter of 2023, Teva recognized a provision based on its offer to settle this matter. In October 2022, the New Mexico Supreme Court granted Teva’s petition for a writ of certiorari and scheduled oral argument for late May 2023 for Teva’s motion to dismiss the complaint brought by the State of New Mexico, which motion was previously denied by the trial court. Annual sales in the United States at the time of the settlement of Viread ® , Truvada ® and Atripla ® were approximately $582 million, $2.4 billion, and $2.9 billion, respectively. Annual sales in the United States at the time Teva launched its generic version of Viread ® in 2017, Truvada ® in 2020 and Atripla ® in 2020 were approximately $ 728 million, $ 2.1 billion and $ 444 million, respectively. In March 2021, following the 2019 European Commission’s inspection of Teva and subsequent request for information, the European Commission opened a formal antitrust investigation to assess whether Teva may have abused a dominant position by delaying the market entry and uptake of medicines that compete with COPAXONE. On October 10, 2022, the European Commission issued a Statement of Objections, which sets forth its preliminary allegations that Teva had engaged in anti-competitive practices. Teva now has the opportunity to formally respond to the European Commission’s allegations. Annual sales of COPAXONE in the European Economic Area for 2021 were approximately $373 million. On July 15, 2021, the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) issued a decision imposing fines for breaches of U.K. competition law by Allergan, Actavis UK and Auden Mckenzie and a number of other companies in connection with the supply of 10mg and 20mg hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K. The decision combines the CMA’s three prior investigations into the supply of hydrocortisone tablets in the U.K., as well as the CMA’s subsequent investigation relating to an anti-competitive agreement with Waymade. 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 two of the three statements of objection from the CMA (dated December 16, 2016 and March 3, 2017), 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. On October 6, 2021, Accord UK and Auden Mckenzie appealed the CMA’s decision. A provision for the estimated exposure for Teva related to the fines and/or damages has been recorded in the financial statements. The hearing for the appeal concluded in the first quarter of 2023, and a decision remains pending. In August 2021, a plaintiff filed a putative class action suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Takeda and several generic manufacturers, including Watson and Teva, alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their settlement of patent litigation involving colchicine tablets (generic Colcrys ® ), entered into in January 2016. Plaintiff claims that the settlement was part of a conspiracy among Takeda and the generic manufacturers to unlawfully restrict output of colchicine by delaying generic entry. On November 23, 2022, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification without prejudice and on March 1, 2023, the Court denied plaintiff’s renewed motion for class certification. On April 10, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to add 18 previously absent class members as plaintiffs. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment remain pending. Trial is currently scheduled to commence in September 2023. Annual sales of Colcrys ® in the United States were approximately $187 million at the time of the settlement. In November 2022, two complaints, one brought by Walgreen Co. and Kroger Specialty Pharmacy, Inc. and another by Fraternal Order of Police, Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund and Jacksonville Police Officers and Fire Fighters Health Insurance Trust (collectively the “Walgreen and EPP complaints”), were filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against Teva and its marketing partner, Natco Pharma Limited (“Natco”), alleging violations of the antitrust laws in connection with their December 2015 settlement of patent litigation with Celgene Corporation (which was subsequently acquired by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (“BMS”)) involving the drug Revlimid ® (lenalidomide). The Walgreen and EPP complaints also name Celgene and BMS as defendants. On January 24, 2023, the Walgreen and EPP complaints were consolidated for pre-trial purposes only with an earlier-filed, already consolidated Insurer Opt-Out Action filed against BMS and Celgene, In Re Revlimid & Thalomid Purchaser Antitrust Litigation , Case No. 2:19-cv-7532-ES-MAH. On February 16, 2023, the Walgreen and EPP plaintiffs filed amended complaints adding additional plaintiffs. On March 21, 2023, Teva and Natco moved to dismiss the complaints against them, and briefing remains ongoing. Annual sales of Revlimid ® in the United States were approximately $3.5 billion at the time of the settlement. On December 2, 2022, plaintiffs purporting to represent putative classes of indirect purchasers of EpiPen® (epinephrine injection) and Nuvigil® (armodafinil) filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas against Teva, Cephalon, and a former Teva executive. Teva owns the New Drug Application (“NDA”) for Nuvigil® and sold the brand product, for which generic entry occurred in 2016. Teva filed an ANDA to sell generic EpiPen®, which Teva launched in 2018, following receipt of FDA approval. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated the federal antitrust laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO Act”), and various state laws in connection with settlements resolving patent litigation relating to those products. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. On March 8, 2023, Teva filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which is pending. Annual sales of Nuvigil® in the United States were approximately $ 300 million at the time Teva entered into the first settlement with an ANDA filer in 2012; annual sales of EpiPen ® in the United States were approximately $600 million at the time Teva entered into its settlement agreement for that product in 2012. 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. On August 25, 2020, a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a three-count indictment charging Teva USA with criminal felony Sherman Act violations. See No. 20-cr-200 (E.D. Pa.). The indictment alleges Teva USA participated in three separate conspiracies with certain other generic drug manufacturers to maintain and fix prices, allocate customers, and other alleged antitrust offenses concerning the sale of generic drugs. The indictment identified the following generic drugs: Pravastatin, Carbamazepine, Clotrimazole, Etodolac (IR and ER), Fluocinonide (Cream E-Cream, Gel, and Ointment), Warfarin, Nadolol, Temozolomide, and Tobramycin. On September 8, 2020, Teva USA pled not guilty to all counts. On December 14, 2022, the Court entered a scheduling order against Teva and its co-defendant Glenmark, which sets a May 2024 trial date. While the Company is unable to estimate a range of loss at this time, a conviction on these criminal charges could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s business, including monetary penalties and debarment from federally funded health care programs. 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. An adverse resolution of this matter may include fines, penalties, financial forfeiture and compliance conditions. 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 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. On June 10, 2020, most, but not all, of the same states, with the addition of the U.S. Virgin Islands, filed a third complaint in the District of Connecticut naming, among other defendants, Actavis, but not Teva USA, in a similar complaint relating to dermatological generics products. On September 9, 2021, the states’ attorneys general amended their third complaint to, among other things, add California as a plaintiff. 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”). On July 13, 2020, the court overseeing the Pennsylvania MDL chose the attorneys’ general November 1, 2019 amended complaint, referenced above, along with certain complaints filed by private plaintiffs, to proceed first in the litigation as bellwether complaints. On February 9, 2021, Teva’s motion to reconsider that ruling was granted, and on May 7, 2021, the Court chose the attorneys’ general third complaint filed on June 10, 2020 and subsequently amended to serve as a bellwether complaint in the Pennsylvania MDL, along with certain complaints filed by private plaintiffs. On December 9, 2021, the Court entered an order setting the schedule for the proceedings in the bellwether cases, which the Court later amended on October 13, 2022. This amended schedule does not include trial dates, but provides for the parties to complete briefing on motions for summary judgment in the third quarter of 2024. On June 7, 2022, the Court dismissed the attorneys’ general claims for monetary relief under federal law, concluding that the federal statute under which the attorneys general brought suit authorizes injunctive relief only. However, the attorneys general have pending claims for monetary relief under state law. On February 27, 2023, the Court largely denied defendants’ motions to dismiss the federal claims asserted by the attorneys general in their bellwether complaint. Another motion to dismiss, directed at that same complaint, and related to the state law claims asserted by the attorneys general, remains pending. Teva has settled with the states of Mississippi (in June 2021), Louisiana (in March 2022), Georgia (in September 2022), Arkansas (in October 2022) and Florida (in February 2023). Teva paid each state an amount proportional to its share of the national population (approximately $1,000,000 for each 1% share of the national population), and the states have dismissed their claims against Actavis and Teva USA, as well as certain former employees of Actavis and Teva USA, pursuant to these settlements. On March 30, 2022, the State of Alabama voluntarily dismissed all of its claims in the litigation, including its claims against Actavis and Teva USA, without prejudice. The territories of American Samoa and Guam have also voluntarily dismissed all of their claims in the litigation, including their claims against Actavis and Teva USA; American Samoa’s dismissal was without prejudice in July 2020, and Guam’s dismissal was with prejudice in February 2023. The most recent settlement with Florida follows the pattern reached in earlier settlements. Specifically, as mentioned above, Teva agreed to pay each state an amount proportional to its share of the national population. This, in addition to the status of ongoing negotiations with several other U.S. state attorneys general to settle on comparable terms, caused management to consider settlement of the claims filed by the remaining attorneys general to be probable, and management recorded an estimated provision in the third quarter of 2022, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450 “Accounting for Contingencies.” Beginning on March 2, 2016, and continuing through December 2020, 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 USA and Actavis. The plaintiffs generally seek injunctive relief and damages under federal antitrust law, and damages under various state laws. On October 16, 2018, the court denied certain of the defendants’ motions to dismiss as to certain federal claims, pending as of that date, 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, May 6, 2020 and October 8, 2021, certain individual plaintiffs commenced civil actions 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 complaints have been filed in the actions and each of the three cases have been placed in deferred status. Certain counties in New York and Texas have also commenced civil actions against many of the defendants in the Pennsylvania MDL, including Teva and Actavis, and the complaints have been transferred to the Pennsylvania MDL. There is also one similar complaint brought in Canada, which alleges that the defendants engaged in conspiracies to fix prices and/or allocate market share of generic drug products to the detriment of a class of private payors. The action is in its early stages. In March 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. Subsequently, in August 2020, the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts brought a civil action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, and asserting causes of action under the federal False Claims Act and state law (the “DOJ PAP Complaint”). It is alleged that Teva caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva’s donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients. An adverse judgment may involve damages, civil penalties and injunctive remedies. On September 10, 2021, the Court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and denied the remainder of the motion. On October 15, 2021, Teva filed an answer to the DOJ PAP Complaint. Trial for this matter is currently scheduled for September 2023. On April 24, 2023, both parties filed summary judgment motions, which are currently pending. In the first quarter of 2023, Teva recognized a provision based on its offer to settle this matter. Additionally, on January 8, 2021, Humana, Inc. filed an action against Teva in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida based on the allegations raised in the DOJ PAP Complaint. On April 2, 2021, Teva filed a motion to dismiss Humana’s claims on the grounds that the claims are time-barred and/or insufficiently pled, and that motion remains pending. On April 11, 2023, the court granted Teva’s motion to stay the case pending the court’s decision on Teva’s motion to dismiss and/or Humana’s motion to amend the complaint. On November 17, 2022, United Healthcare also filed an action against Teva in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey based on the conduct alleged in the DOJ PAP Complaint. On March 10, 2023, Teva moved to dismiss United Healthcare’s claims on the grounds that it is time-barred and lacks standing and sufficient particularity to assert RICO claims, and that motion remains pending. In April 2021, a city and county in Washington filed claims against Teva in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington for alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Washington’s Consumer Protection Act, and unjust enrichment concerning Teva’s sale of COPAXONE. Plaintiffs purport to represent a nationwide class of health plans and a subclass of Washington-based health plans that purchased and/or reimbursed health plan members for COPAXONE. Plaintiffs allege that Teva engaged in several fraudulent schemes that resulted in plaintiffs and the putative class members purchasing and/or reimbursing plan members for additional prescriptions of COPAXONE and/or at inflated COPAXONE prices. Plaintiffs seek treble damages for the excess reimbursements and inflated costs, as well as injunctive relief. On September 28, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On November 17, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss the suit, on the grounds that plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the applicable statutes of limitations and the direct purchaser rule, suffer from jurisdictional defects, and fail to plausibly allege fraud or other elements of their claims. On March 9, 2023, the court held a hearing on the motion to dismiss, and a decision remains pending. On June 29, 2021, Mylan Pharmaceuticals (“Mylan”) filed claims against Teva in the District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 11, 2022 and March 15, 2022, FWK Holdings, LLC, KPH Healthcare Servs., Inc. d/b/a Kinney Drugs, Inc., Meijer Inc., Meijer Distribution, Inc., Labor-Management Healthcare Fund, the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, and the New York State Teamsters Council Health and Hospital Fund filed claims against Teva in the District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated direct and indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. On August 22, 2022, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Vermont and the Vermont Health Plan sued Teva in the District Court for the District of Vermont on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated indirect purchasers of COPAXONE. The complaints assert claims for alleged violations of the Lanham Act, state and federal unfair competition and monopolization laws, tortious interference, trade libel, and a violation of the RICO Act. Additionally, plaintiffs claim Teva was involved in an unlawful scheme to delay and hinder generic competition concerning COPAXONE sales. Plaintiffs seek damages for lost profits and expenses, disgorgement, restitution, treble damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and injunctive relief. Teva has moved to dismiss the complaints filed by Mylan and the class plaintiffs in the District of New Jersey on the grounds, among others, that none of its challenged conduct, violates the law. Those motions are fully briefed and a decision remains pending. On November 21, 2022, the Vermont court denied Teva’s motion to transfer the complaint filed in Vermont. On December 21, 2022, Teva moved to dismiss the Vermont complaint on grounds similar to those asserted in its motions to dismiss the complaints in New Jersey. Those motions are fully briefed, and a decision remains pending. On December 1, 2022, Teva received a civil subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s office in Boston, Massachusetts requesting certain documents related to the sale and marketing of AUSTEDO and risperidone LAI. Teva is cooperating with the request for documents. Opioids Litigation Since May 2014, more than 3,500 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, 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. Two cases that were included in the MDL Opioid Proceeding were transferred back to federal district court for additional discovery, pre-trial proceedings and trial. Those cases are: City of Chicago v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 14-cv-04361 (N.D. Ill.) and City and County of San Francisco v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al., No. 18-cv-07591-CRB (N.D. Cal.). 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, over 950 personal injury plaintiffs, including various putative class actions of individuals, have asserted personal injury and wrongful death claims in over 600 complaints, nearly all of which are consolidated in the MDL Opioid Proceeding. Furthermore, approximately 700 non-personal injury complaints and approximately 100 personal injury 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. The individual personal injury plaintiffs further seek non-economic damages. In many of these cases, plaintiffs are seeking joint and several damages among all defendants. On April 19, 2021, a bench trial in California (The People of the State of California, acting by and through Santa Clara County Counsel James R. Williams, et. al. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., et. al.) commenced against Teva and other defendants focused on the marketing of branded opioids. On December 14, 2021, the court issued its final judgment in favor of the defendants on all claims. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of this judgment in February 2022. On June 29, 2021, a jury trial in New York ( In re Opioid Litigation , Index No. 400000/2017) commenced against Teva and other defendants, focused on the marketing and distribution of opioids. The case was bifurcated between liability and damages. On December 30, 2021, the jury returned a liability verdict in favor of plaintiffs (the County of Suffolk, the County of Nassau and the State of New York) on the plaintiffs’ public nuisance claim. On November 3, 2022, Teva reached an agreement with the Attorney General of New York that settled the state’s and its subdivisions’ opioid-related claims, the details of which are included in the table below. On July 21, 2021, it was announced that four other defendants (not including Teva) reached nationwide settlements, subject to certain conditions, which include payment of up to approximately $26 billion spread over up to 18 years. In July 2022, Teva, the working group of States’ Attorneys General (the “Working Group”), the Multi-District Litigation Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee (“PEC”), and counsel for Native American tribes (“Tribes”) reached an agreement in principle on the financial terms of nationwide settlements similar in structure to the nationwide settlements of other defendants. During the third quarter of 2022, Teva and Allergan resolved their dispute with respect to Teva’s indemnification obligations. In November 2022, Teva, Allergan, the Working Group and PEC, and representatives for the Tribes, finalized the terms of their respective proposed opioids nationwide settlement agreements. Under the financial terms of the proposed nationwide settlement agreement with the states and subdivisions, Teva will pay up to $4.25 billion (including the already settled cases), spread over 13 years. This total includes the supply of up to $1.2 billion of Teva’s generic version of Narcan ® (naloxone hydrochloride nasal spray), valued at wholesale acquisition cost, over 10 years or cash at 20% of the wholesale acquisition cost ($240 million) in lieu of product. In January of 2023, Teva confirmed participation from all states except Nevada, and decided to move forward with the participation process of the subdivisions, and that process is ongoing. In February 2023, Teva and the Tribes finalized their opioids settlement with participation from 100% of the Tribes, the details of which are included in the table below. Teva’s proposed nationwide settlement agreement with the states and subdivisions is contingent upon sufficient participation by the subdivisions in Teva’s and Allergan’s respective nationwide opioids settlement agreements. Currently, more than 99 % of the litigating subdivisions have chosen to participate in Teva’s nationwide settlement, which represents 98 % of the population of the participating states. Teva has until June 8, 2023 to determine whether or not to move forward with its proposed nationwide settlement. If these nationwide settlement agreements are not finalized or if Nevada or subdivisions choose not to participate, additional trials are expected to proceed. Trials in two opioids cases currently are scheduled to commence in the second half of 2023; one brought by the Nevada Attorney General, currently scheduled to commence in August 2023, and the other brought by eight hospitals against Teva, other manufacturers, distributors, and pharmacies, currently scheduled to commence in July 2023. In addition to its pending nationwide opioids settlement, Teva previously reached settlements with individual states and subdivisions to settle opioids claims brought by those jurisdictions. The material details of those individual settlements and Teva’s settlement with the Tribes appear in the table below, which includes the cash payment to be made by Teva and the wholesale acquisition cost (“WAC”) of product to be provided by Teva, in each case to such states and subdivisions and the Tribes. If the nationwide settlement reaches sufficient participation by the subdivisions, Teva will finalize opioid settlements with a total of 49 of the 50 states.
Date |  | Jurisdiction |  | Settlement Payment * |  | Payment Term |  | Settlement Product |  | Product WAC Value and Term
June 7, 2019 |  | Oklahoma |  | $72.3 million (paid) |  | 1 year |  | N/A |  | N/A
December 27, 2019 |  | Cuyahoga County, OH |  | $12.4 million (paid) |  | 2.5 years |  | buprenorphine naloxone (generic Suboxone ® ) |  | $15.5 million (3 years)
December 27, 2019 |  | Summit County, OH |  | $7.6 million (paid) |  | 2.5 years |  | buprenorphine naloxone (generic Suboxone ® ) |  | $9.5 million (3 years)
January 18, 2022 |  | Louisiana |  | $15 million |  | 18 years |  | buprenorphine naloxone (generic Suboxone ® ) |  | $3 million (1 year)
February 4, 2022 |  | Texas |  | $131.5 million |  | 15 years |  | naloxone hydrochloride (generic Narcan®) |  | $75 million (10 years)
March 21, 2022 |  | Rhode Island |  | $21 million |  | 13 years |  | naloxone hydrochloride (generic Narcan ® ) and buprenorphine naloxone (generic Suboxone ® ) |  | $78.5 million (10 years)
March 30, 2022 |  | Florida |  | $177.1 million |  | 15 years |  | naloxone hydrochloride (generic Narcan®) |  | $84 million (10 years)
July 12, 2022 |  | San Francisco |  | $19.5 million |  | 13 years |  | naloxone hydrochloride (generic Narcan®) |  | $20 million (10 years)
September 19, 2022 |  | West Virginia |  | $75.4 million |  | 15 years |  | naloxone hydrochloride (generic Narcan®) |  | $27 million (10 years)
November 3, 2022 |  | New York |  | $313.3 million ** |  | 18 years |  | N/A |  | N/A
February 24, 2023 |  | Tribes |  | $108.3 million |  | 13 years |  | naloxone hydrochloride (generic Narcan®) |  | $25 million (10 years)
* | Amounts exclude attorneys’ fees and costs, except New York.
** | Not including cash payment and attorneys’ fees allocated under the nationwide settlement.
In light of the agreement on the proposed nationwide settlement between Teva and the States’ Attorneys General and their subdivisions, Teva’s indemnification obligations arising from Teva’s acquisition of the Actavis Generics business for opioid-related claims, prior settlements with Louisiana, Texas, Rhode Island, Florida, San Francisco, West Virginia, New York, and the Tribes, as well as an estimate for a number of items including, but not limited to, costs associated with administering injunctive terms, and most favored nations clauses associated with prior settlements, the Company has recorded a provision for the potential settlement. The provision is a reasonable estimate of the ultimate costs in the likely event that the nationwide settlement is finalized under its current proposed terms and conditions, after discounting payments to states to their net present value. However, if the nationwide settlement is not finalized for the entirety of the remaining cases, a reasonable upper end of a range of loss cannot be determined. 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. 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. This was followed by a Statement of Charges and Notice of Hearing filed by the NYDFS. This matter has been resolved by Teva’s November 3, 2022 settlement with the Attorney General of New York that settled the state’s and its subdivisions’ opioid-related claims. In addition, Teva, certain of its subsidiaries and other defendants, are defending claims and putative class action lawsuits in Canada related to the manufacture, sale, marketing and distribution of opioid medications. The lawsuits include a claim by the Province of British Columbia on behalf of itself and a putative class of other federal and provincial governments, and claims of municipalities, First Nations, and persons who used opioids on behalf of themselves and putative classes. These cases are in early stages with the preliminary motions brought by the Province of British Columbia expected to be heard in late 2023. 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 subsequently 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 filed an amended complaint, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of Teva’s securities between February 6, 2014 and May 10, 2019, asserting 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. From July 2017 to June 2019, other putative securities class actions were filed in other federal courts based on similar allegations and claims, and were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Between August 2017 and January 2022, twenty-three complaints were filed against Teva and certain of its current and former officers and directors on behalf of plaintiffs in various forums across the country, but many of those plaintiffs “opted-out” of 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. On January 18, 2022, Teva entered into a settlement in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation for $420 million, which received final approval from the court on June 2, 2022. The vast majority of the total settlement amount was covered by the Company’s insurance carriers, with a small portion contributed by Teva. Additionally, as part of the settlement, Teva admitted no liability and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. On January 22, 2021, the Court dismissed the “opt-out” plaintiffs’ claims arising from statements made prior to the five year statute of repose, but denied Teva’s motion to dismiss their claims under Israeli laws. On May 24, 2021, Teva moved to dismiss a majority of the “opt-out” complaints on various other grounds, and on May 1, 2023, the Court granted in part and denied in part Teva’s motions. Teva has settled several “opt-out” claims, but a number of opt-out cases remain outstanding. In addition, Teva reached a settlement agreement of Israeli shareholder motions to certify class action on similar allegations to those raised in the Ontario Teachers Securities Litigation. The settlement agreement is awaiting court approval. On September 23, 2020, a putative securities class action was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Teva and certain of its former officers. On August 10, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a corrected amended class action complaint, purportedly on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Teva securities between October 29, 2015 and August 18, 2020. The corrected amended complaint alleges that Teva and certain of its current and former officers violated federal securities laws by allegedly making false and misleading statements regarding the commercial performance of COPAXONE, namely, by failing to disclose that Teva had allegedly caused the submission of false claims to Medicare through Teva’s donations to bona fide independent charities that provide financial assistance to patients, which allegedly impacted COPAXONE’s commercial success and the sustainability of its revenues and resulted in the DOJ PAP Complaint filed by the DOJ. The corrected amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and legal fees. On March 25, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part Teva’s and the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss the corrected amended complaint, (i) holding that the plaintiffs’ complaint failed to plead that certain public statements regarding Teva’s compliance with the law were misleading, (ii) holding that two alleged partial corrective disclosures did not establish loss causation and cannot serve as the basis for plaintiff’s claimed loss, (iii) dismissing all claims against one of the individual defendants, and (iv) otherwise denying the motion to dismiss. On August 2, 2022, the court stayed all proceedings other than class certification proceedings pending the resolution of the DOJ PAP Complaint filed by the DOJ. On September 13, 2022, the plaintiff moved for class certification, which remains pending. A motion to approve a securities class action was also filed in the Central District Court in Israel, which has been stayed pending the U.S. litigation, with similar allegations to those made in the above complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 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. Item 103 of Regulation S-K promulgated by the SEC requires disclosure of certain environmental matters when a governmental authority is a party to the proceedings and such proceedings involve potential monetary sanctions, unless the Company reasonably believes that the matter will result in no monetary sanctions, or in monetary sanctions, exclusive of interest and costs, of less than $300,000. The following matter is disclosed in accordance with that requirement. On July 8, 2021, the National Green Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi, issued an order against Teva’s subsidiary in India, Teva API India Private Limited, finding non-compliance with environmental laws and assessed a penalty of $1.4 million. The Company disputed certain of the findings and the amount of the penalty and filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of India. On August 5, 2021, the Supreme Court of India admitted the appeal for hearing and granted an interim unconditional stay on the National Green Tribunal’s order. The Company does not believe that the eventual outcome of such matter will have a material effect on its business. 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). On December 28, 2018, following defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, the court granted the motion in part and dismissed all of plaintiffs’ claims, except for their claim against Cephalon for breach of contract. In November 2021, plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to, among other things, reassert claims against the Company and Teva USA. However, on July 12, 2022, plaintiffs filed a new amended complaint that includes claims against Teva USA but not the Company, in exchange for Teva USA’s agreement to guarantee any judgment entered against Cephalon in the litigation. A bench trial for this matter was held in September 2022, and a ruling is expected in 2023, following closing arguments. On March 15, 2022, The Scripps Research Institute (“Scripps”) filed claims against Teva’s subsidiary, Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH (“TPIG”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for alleged breach of a sublicense agreement between Scripps and Ivax Corporation (“Ivax”) dated November 2000 (“Sublicense Agreement”). After Teva’s acquisition of Ivax, TPIG became the successor-in-interest to Ivax under the Sublicense Agreement, pursuant to which Scripps licensed to Ivax certain rights to the drug cladribine. Scripps alleges that TPIG breached the Sublicense Agreement by failing to pay royalties on sales of cladribine in certain countries, and is seeking breach of contract damages for royalties allegedly due but not paid, as well as a declaratory judgment related to royalties due in the future. On November 17, 2022, the Court dismissed Scripps’ claim for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing but denied TPIG’s motion to dismiss Scripps’ breach of contract and declaratory judgment claims. TPIG answered the first amended complaint on December 16, 2022, and discovery is ongoing. Gain Contingencies From time to time, Teva may directly or indirectly pursue claims against certain parties, including but not limited to patent infringement lawsuits against other pharmaceutical companies to protect its patent rights, as well as derivative actions brought on behalf of Teva. Teva recognizes gain contingencies from the defendants in such lawsuits when they are realized or when all related contingencies have been resolved. No gain has been recognized regarding the matters disclosed below, unless mentioned otherwise. In October 2017, Teva filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Eli Lilly & Co.’s (“Lilly”) marketing and sale of its galcanezumab product for the treatment of migraine infringes nine Teva patents, including three method of treatment patents and six composition of matter patents. Lilly then submitted inter partes review (“IPR”) petitions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”), challenging the validity of the nine Teva patents. The PTAB issued decisions upholding the three method of treatment patents but finding the six composition of matter patents invalid, which decisions were affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on August 16, 2021. A jury trial regarding the three method of treatment patents began on October 18, 2022, and on November 9, 2022, the jury issued a verdict in Teva’s favor, finding the three method of treatment patents valid and infringed by Lilly and awarding Teva $176.5 million in damages. On January 28, 2023, Lilly filed a motion requesting that the District Court overturn the jury’s verdict. Once the motion is decided, the losing party may appeal the decision to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 8, 2021, Teva filed another lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that Lilly’s marketing and sale of galcanezumab product infringes two patents related to the treatment of refractory migraine. Lilly’s IPR petitions challenging the patentability of these two patents as well as a third patent also related to the treatment of refractory migraine were instituted by the PTAB. The litigation in the District of Massachusetts was stayed during the pendency of these IPR proceedings. Teva intends to continue to vigorously defend its patents, which it believes are valid, against infringement by companies attempting to market products prior to the expiration of such patents. Motions to approve derivative actions seeking monetary damages against certain past and present directors and officers have been filed in Israeli Courts alleging negligence and recklessness, as well as motions for document disclosure prior to initiating derivative actions. Motions were filed with respect to several U.S. and EU settlement agreements, opioids, allegations related to the DOJ’s complaint regarding COPAXONE patient assistance program in the U.S., and with respect to the COPAXONE European Commission’s inspection.

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 440 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 954 -SubTopic 440 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6491277&loc=d3e6429-115629 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2009/role/commonPracticeRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI https://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (c) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/disclosureRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -Subparagraph (a) -URI https://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=123406679&loc=d3e25336-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | dtr-types:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration