TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL
INDUSTRIES LIMITED
Notes to Consolidated
Financial Statements
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.”
28