Item 1.          Business

Overview

Unless otherwise indicated or required by the context, references throughout to “Endo,” the “Company,” “we,” “our” or “us” refer to financial information and transactions of Endo International plc and its subsidiaries.

Endo International plc is an Ireland-domiciled, global specialty pharmaceutical company focused on generic and branded pharmaceuticals. We aim to be the premier partner to healthcare professionals and payment providers, delivering an innovative suite of generic and branded drugs to meet patients’ needs. Endo International plc was incorporated in Ireland in 2013 as a private limited company and re-registered effective February 18, 2014 as a public limited company.

Our ordinary shares are traded on the NASDAQ Global Market (NASDAQ) under the ticker symbol “ENDP.” References throughout to “ordinary shares” refer to Endo International plc’s ordinary shares, 1,000,000,000 authorized, par value $0.0001 per share. In addition, we have 4,000,000 euro deferred shares outstanding, par value of $0.01 each.

Our global headquarters are located at Minerva House, Simmonscourt Road, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4, Ireland (telephone number: 011-353-1-268-2000) and our U.S. headquarters are located at 1400 Atwater Drive, Malvern, Pennsylvania 19355 (telephone number: 484-216-0000).

Across all of our businesses, we generated total revenues of $2.95 billion , $3.47 billion and $4.01 billion in 2018 , 2017 and 2016 , respectively.

Our focus is on pharmaceutical products and we target areas where we believe we can build leading positions. We use a differentiated operating model based on a lean and nimble structure, the rational allocation of capital and an emphasis on high-value research and development (R&D) targets. While our primary focus is on organic growth, we evaluate and, where appropriate, execute on opportunities to expand through the acquisition of products and companies in areas that we believe serve patients and customers while offering attractive growth characteristics and margins. We believe our operating model and the execution of our corporate strategy will enable us to create shareholder value over the long-term.

For branded products, we seek to develop, acquire or license products that have inherent scientific, regulatory, legal and technical complexities and market such products under recognizable brand names that are trademarked. For United States (U.S.) products we develop, after the completion of required clinical trials and testing, we seek approvals from regulatory bodies such as through the submission of New Drug Applications (NDAs) or Biologics License Applications (BLAs) to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In the U.S., upon approval, patents included in the applications are listed in a publication referred to as the Orange Book. We believe that our patents, the protection of discoveries in connection with our development activities, our proprietary products, technologies, processes, trade secrets, know-how, innovations and all of our intellectual property are important to our business and achieving a competitive position. However, there can be no assurance that any of our patents, licenses or other intellectual property rights will afford us any protection from competition. Additional information is included throughout this Part I, Item 1.

For generic products, which are the pharmaceutical and therapeutic equivalents of branded products that are generally marketed under their generic (chemical) names rather than their brand names, our focus is on high-barrier-to-entry products, including first-to-file or first-to-market opportunities that are difficult to formulate or manufacture or face complex legal and regulatory challenges. In the U.S., a first-to-file product, also known as a Paragraph IV product, refers to a generic product for which the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) containing a patent challenge to the corresponding branded product was the first to be filed with the FDA. A first-to-market product refers to a product that is the first marketed generic equivalent of a branded product for reasons apart from statutory marketing exclusivity, such as the generic equivalent of a branded product that is difficult to formulate or manufacture. First-to-file products in the U.S. offer the opportunity for 180 days of generic marketing exclusivity, except for competing authorized generic products, to the extent we are successful in litigating any patent challenges and receive final FDA approval of the products. First-to-market products allow us to mitigate risks from competitive pressure commonly associated with commoditized generic products. Additional information is included throughout this Part I, Item 1.

The four reportable business segments in which we operate are: (1) U.S. Branded - Specialty & Established Pharmaceuticals , (2) U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables , (3) U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals and (4) International Pharmaceuticals . Additional information about our reportable business segments is included throughout this Part I, Item 1. The results of operations of our reportable business segments for each of the years ended December 31, 2018 , 2017 and 2016 are discussed in Part II, Item 7 of this report "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" under the heading “ RESULTS OF OPERATIONS .”

U.S. Branded - Specialty & Established Pharmaceuticals

Our U.S. Branded - Specialty & Established Pharmaceuticals segment, which accounted for approximately 29% , 28% and 29% of total revenues in 2018 , 2017 and 2016 , respectively, includes a variety of branded prescription products to treat and manage conditions in urology, urologic oncology, endocrinology, pain and orthopedics. The products in this segment include XIAFLEX ^® , SUPPRELIN ^® LA, NASCOBAL ^® Nasal Spray, TESTOPEL ^® , AVEED ^® , PERCOCET ^® , VOLTAREN ^® Gel, LIDODERM ^® , FORTESTA ^® Gel, EDEX ^® and TESTIM ^® , among others.

U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables

Our U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables segment, which accounted for approximately 32% , 22% and 14% of total revenues in 2018 , 2017 and 2016 , respectively, consists primarily of branded sterile injectable products such as VASOSTRICT ^® , ADRENALIN ^® and APLISOL ^® , among others, and certain generic sterile injectable products, including ertapenem for injection and ephedrine sulfate injection, among others. These injectable products are manufactured in a sterile facility and are primarily sold through wholesalers, often via an arrangement with a group purchasing organization (GPO), in vial dosages prior to being administered at hospitals, clinics and long-term care facilities.

Our primary U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables manufacturing site, which handles the production, assembly, quality assurance testing and packaging of our products, is located in Rochester, Michigan.

U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals

Our U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals segment, which accounted for approximately 34% , 44% and 50% of total revenues in 2018 , 2017 and 2016 , respectively, consists of a differentiated product portfolio including solid oral extended-release, solid oral immediate-release, liquids, semi-solids, patches, powders, ophthalmics and sprays and includes products in the pain management, urology, central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular disease markets, among others. Our U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals segment is among the largest U.S. generics companies based on market share. Our largest U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals manufacturing sites, which handle the production, assembly, quality assurance testing and packaging of our generic products, are located in Chestnut Ridge, New York; Irvine, California and Chennai, India.

International Pharmaceuticals

The International Pharmaceuticals segment, which accounted for approximately 5% , 7% and 7% of total revenues in 2018 , 2017 and 2016 , respectively, includes a variety of specialty pharmaceutical products sold outside the U.S., primarily in Canada through our operating company Paladin Labs Inc. (Paladin). This segment’s key products serve growing therapeutic areas, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pain, women’s health and oncology.

This segment also included: (i) our South African business, which was sold in July 2017 and consisted of Litha Healthcare Group Limited and certain assets acquired from Aspen Holdings in October 2015 (Litha) and (ii) our Latin American business consisting of Grupo Farmacéutico Somar, S.A.P.I. de C.V. (Somar), which was sold in October 2017.

Our Strategy

Our strategy is to focus on our core assets, a branded pharmaceutical business and a leading generics business, that deliver high quality medicines to patients through excellence in development, manufacturing and commercialization. Through a lean and efficient operating model, we are committed to serving patients and customers while continuing to innovate and provide products that make a difference in the lives of patients. We strive to maximize shareholder value by adapting to market realities and customer needs.

We are committed to driving organic growth at attractive margins by improving execution, optimizing cash flow and leveraging our market position, while maintaining a streamlined cost structure throughout each of our businesses. Specific areas of management’s focus include:

We will continue to evaluate strategic R&D opportunities. Going forward, while our primary focus will be on organic growth, we will evaluate and, where appropriate, execute on opportunities to expand through acquisitions of products and companies.

Our Competitive Strengths

To successfully execute our strategy, we must continue to capitalize on our following core strengths:

Experienced and dedicated management team. We have a highly skilled and customer-focused management team in critical leadership positions across all of Endo. Our senior management team has extensive experience in the pharmaceutical industry and a proven track record of developing businesses and creating value. This experience includes improving business performance through organic revenue growth and through the identification, consummation and integration of licensing and acquisition opportunities.

Focus on the differentiated products of our generics and sterile injectables portfolios. We develop high-barrier-to-entry products, including first-to-file or first-to-market opportunities that are difficult to formulate or manufacture or face complex legal and regulatory challenges. We believe products with these characteristics will face a lesser degree of competition and therefore provide longer product life cycles and higher profitability than products without these characteristics. Our business model continues to focus on being a low cost producer of products in categories with higher barriers to entry and lower levels of competition by leveraging operational efficiency. Our strategy in the U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables and U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals segments includes focusing on categories where there are fewer challenges from low-cost operators.

Operational excellence. We have efficient, effective and high-quality manufacturing capabilities across a diversified array of dosage forms. We believe our comprehensive suite of technology, manufacturing and development competencies increases the likelihood of success in commercializing high-barrier-to-entry products and obtaining first-to-file and first-to-market status on future products, yielding more sustainable market share and profitability. For example, our capabilities in the rapidly growing U.S. market for sterile drug products and sterile vial and hormonal capabilities afford us with a broader and more diversified product portfolio and a greater selection of targets for potential development.

We believe that our competitive advantages include our integrated team-based approach to product development that combines our formulation, regulatory, legal, manufacturing and commercial capabilities; our ability to introduce new generic equivalents for brand-name drugs; our quality and cost-effective production; our ability to meet customer and/or patient expectations and the breadth of our existing sterile injectables and generic product portfolio offerings. From time to time, we perform strategic assessments and take steps to optimize our various product portfolios so that we may continue to capitalize on a strong and durable product portfolio and R&D pipeline. We are focused only on those products that deliver acceptable returns on investment, thereby leveraging our existing platform to drive operational efficiency.

Growth of our branded Specialty Products portfolio while leveraging the strength of our Established Products portfolio. We have assembled a portfolio of branded prescription products offered by our U.S. Branded - Specialty & Established Pharmaceuticals segment to treat and manage conditions in urology, urologic oncology, endocrinology, pain and orthopedics. Additional information on these product portfolios is included below under the heading “ Products Overview .”

Continuing proactive diversification of our business. Our primary focus is on organic growth. However, we will evaluate and, where appropriate, execute on opportunities to expand through acquisitions of products and companies in areas that will serve patients and customers and that we believe will offer attractive growth characteristics and margins. In particular, we will look to continue to enhance our product lines by acquiring or licensing rights to additional products and regularly evaluating selective acquisition opportunities.

Research and development expertise. Our R&D efforts are focused on the development of a balanced, diversified portfolio of innovative and clinically differentiated product candidates . Through our U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables and U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals businesses, we seek out and develop high-barrier-to-entry products, including first-to-file or first-to-market opportunities. We periodically review our generic products pipeline in order to better direct investment toward those opportunities that we expect will deliver the greatest returns. We will continue to evaluate strategic R&D opportunities, with a particular focus on assets with inherently lower risk profiles and clearly defined regulatory pathways. Our current R&D pipeline consists of products in various stages of development. For additional detail, see “ Select Development Projects .”

Our R&D and regulatory affairs staff is based primarily in India, Chestnut Ridge, New York; and at our U.S. headquarters in Malvern, Pennsylvania.

Targeted sales and marketing infrastructure. Our sales and marketing activities are primarily based in the U.S. and Canada and focus on the promotion of our Specialty Products portfolio. We market our products directly to specialty physicians, including those specializing in urology, orthopedics, pediatric endocrinology and bariatric surgery. Our sales force also targets retail pharmacies and other healthcare professionals. We distribute our products through independent wholesale distributors, but we also sell directly to retailers, clinics, government agencies, doctors, independent retail and specialty pharmacies and independent specialty distributors. Our marketing policy is designed to provide physicians, pharmacies, hospitals, public and private payers and appropriate healthcare professionals with products and relevant, appropriate medical information. We work to gain access to healthcare authority, pharmacy benefit managers and managed care organizations’ formularies (lists of recommended or approved medicines and other products), including Medicare Part D plans and reimbursement lists, by demonstrating the qualities and treatment benefits of our products within their approved indications.

Products Overview

U.S. Branded - Specialty & Established Pharmaceuticals

The following table displays the product revenues to external customers in our U.S. Branded - Specialty & Established Pharmaceuticals segment for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 (in thousands):

Specialty Products Portfolio

Endo commercializes a number of products within the market served by specialty distributors and specialty pharmacies, and in which healthcare practitioners can purchase and bill payers directly (the buy and bill market). Our current offerings primarily relate to two distinct areas: (i) urology treatments, which focus mainly on Peyronie’s disease (PD) and testosterone replacement therapies (TRT) for hypogonadism; and (ii) orthopedics/pediatric endocrinology treatments, which focus on Dupuytren’s contracture (DC) and central precocious puberty (CPP).

Key product offerings in this category include the following:

Established Products Portfolio

Endo’s Established Products portfolio’s current treatment offerings primarily relate to two distinct areas: (i) pain management, including products in the opioid analgesics and osteoarthritis pain segments and for the treatment of pain associated with post-herpetic neuralgia; and (ii) urology, which focuses mainly on treatment of hypogonadism. The Company’s legacy pain portfolio products are managed as mature brands.

Key product offerings in this category include, among others, the following:

Also included within this product portfolio is OPANA ^® ER, an opioid agonist indicated for the management of pain severe enough to require daily, around-the-clock, long-term opioid treatment and for which alternative treatment options are inadequate. As further discussed in Part II, Item 7 of this report "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" , we voluntarily ceased shipments of OPANA ^® ER to customers by September 1, 2017.

U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables

The following table displays the product revenues to external customers in our U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables segment for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 (in thousands):

The U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables segment includes a product portfolio of approximately 30 product families, including branded sterile injectable products that are protected by certain patent rights and have inherent scientific, regulatory, legal and technical complexities and generic injectable products that are difficult to formulate or manufacture or face complex legal and regulatory challenges. Sterile injectables in this segment are manufactured in a sterile facility and are sold primarily in vial dosages and administered at hospitals, clinics and long-term care facilities. The product offerings in this segment include, among others, the following:

U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals

The U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals segment includes a product portfolio of over 200 generic prescription product families including solid oral extended-release, solid oral immediate-release, liquids, semi-solids, patches (which are medicated adhesive patches designed to deliver the drug through the skin), powders, ophthalmics (which are sterile pharmaceutical preparations administered for ocular conditions) and sprays and includes products in the pain management, urology, central nervous system disorders, immunosuppression, oncology, women’s health and cardiovascular disease markets, among others.

Generic drugs are the pharmaceutical and therapeutic equivalents of branded products and are generally marketed under their generic (chemical) names rather than by brand names. Generic products are substantially the same as branded products in dosage form, safety, efficacy, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use, but are generally sold at prices below those of the corresponding branded products and thus represent cost-effective alternatives for consumers.

Typically, a generic drug may not be marketed until the expiration of applicable patent(s) on the corresponding branded product unless a resolution of patent litigation results in an earlier opportunity to enter the market. For additional detail, see “ Governmental Regulation .” However, our generics portfolio also contains certain authorized generics, which are generic versions of branded drugs licensed by brand drug companies under an NDA and marketed as generics. Authorized generics do not face regulatory barriers to introduction and are not prohibited from sale during the 180-day marketing exclusivity period granted to the first-to-file ANDA applicant. Our authorized generics include lidocaine patch 5% (LIDODERM ^® ), budesonide (Entocort ^® EC), and diclofenac sodium gel (VOLTAREN ^® Gel), among others. We believe we are a partner of choice to larger brand companies seeking an authorized generics distributor for their branded products. We have been the authorized generic distributor for such companies as AstraZeneca plc, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Novartis AG (Novartis) and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.

International Pharmaceuticals

Our International Pharmaceuticals segment includes a variety of specialty pharmaceutical products sold outside the U.S., primarily in Canada through our operating company Paladin . This segment’s key products serve growing therapeutic areas, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, pain, women’s health and oncology.

Select Development Projects

Collagenase Clostridium Histolyticum

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (CCH) is currently approved and marketed in the U.S. under the trademark XIAFLEX ^® for the treatment of both DC and PD (two separate medical indications).

We are currently progressing the cellulite treatment development program for CCH. In November 2018, we reported positive results from two Phase 3 clinical trials of CCH for the treatment of cellulite in the buttocks. Trial subjects receiving CCH showed highly statistically significant levels of improvement in the appearance of cellulite with treatment, as measured by the trials’ primary endpoint. In addition, the RELEASE-1 trial passed 8 out of 8 key secondary endpoints and the RELEASE-2 trial passed 7 out of 8 key secondary endpoints. Finally, CCH was well-tolerated in the actively-treated subjects with most adverse events being mild to moderate in severity and primarily limited to the local injection area .

We have global marketing rights for CCH for the treatment of cellulite. We also have the right to further develop CCH for additional indications, including Dupuytren’s nodules, adhesive capsulitis, lateral hip fat, plantar fibromatosis and human and canine lipomas on the medical therapeutic side, as well as other potential aesthetic indications.

Other Pharmaceutical Pipeline

Our remaining pipeline consists mainly of a variety of pharmaceutical products in our U.S. Generic Pharmaceuticals and U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables segments. Our primary approach to developing generic products, including injectables, is to target high-barrier-to-entry generic product opportunities, including first-to-file or first-to-market opportunities that are difficult to formulate or manufacture or face complex legal and regulatory challenges. We expect such product opportunities to result in products that are either the exclusive generic or have two or fewer generic competitors when launched, which we believe tends to lead to more sustainable market share and profitability for our product portfolio. In our U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables business, we also focus on developing branded injectable products with inherent scientific, regulatory, legal and technical complexities and developing other dosage forms and technologies.

As of December 31, 2018 , these two segments had over 150 product candidates in their pipelines, which included approximately 85 ANDAs pending with the FDA representing approximately $25 billion of combined annual sales for the corresponding branded products in 2018 . Of the 85 ANDAs, approximately 40 represent first-to-file opportunities or first-to-market opportunities. These numbers do not include the five sterile injectable product candidates licensed during the second quarter of 2018 from Nevakar, Inc.

We periodically review our development projects in order to better direct investment toward those opportunities that we expect will deliver the greatest returns. This process can lead to decisions to discontinue certain R&D projects that may reduce the number of products in our previously reported pipeline.

Competition

Branded Pharmaceuticals

Our branded pharmaceutical products compete with products manufactured by many other companies in highly competitive markets throughout the U.S. and internationally, primarily through Paladin.

We compete principally through targeted product development and our acquisition and in-licensing strategies. The competitive landscape in the acquisition and in-licensing of pharmaceutical products has intensified in recent years as a result of a reduction in the number of compounds available and an increase in competitors bidding on available assets. In addition to product development and acquisitions, other competitive factors in the pharmaceutical industry include product efficacy, safety, ease of use, price, demonstrated cost-effectiveness, marketing effectiveness, service, reputation and access to technical information.

Certain of the new products that we introduce must compete with other products already on the market or products that are later developed by competitors, including both competing brands and generic equivalents. If competitors introduce new products, delivery systems or processes with therapeutic or cost advantages, our products can be subject to progressive price reductions and/or decreased volume of sales. Accordingly, the competitive environment of the branded product business requires us to continually seek out technological innovations and to market our products effectively. To successfully compete for business of managed care and pharmacy benefits management organizations, we must often demonstrate that our products offer not only medical benefits but also cost advantages as compared with other forms of care.

Manufacturers of generic pharmaceuticals typically invest far less in R&D than research-based pharmaceutical companies and therefore can price their products significantly lower than branded products. Accordingly, when a branded product loses its market exclusivity, it normally faces intense price competition from generic forms of the product. Due to their significantly lower prices, generic versions, where available, may be substituted by pharmacies or required in preference to the branded version under third-party reimbursement programs.

U.S. Branded - Specialty & Established Pharmaceuticals

This segment’s major competitors, including Mylan N.V. ( Mylan ), Allergan plc (Allergan), Purdue Pharma, L.P. (Purdue), Jazz Pharmaceuticals plc (Jazz), Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited (Takeda), Horizon Pharma plc (Horizon) and Mallinckrodt plc (Mallinckrodt), among others, vary depending on therapeutic and product category, dosage strength and drug-delivery systems.

Several of this segment’s products, including, for example, PERCOCET ^® , VOLTAREN ^® Gel, LIDODERM ^® and TESTIM ^® , face generic competition. In addition, we are aware of certain competitive activities involving certain of our branded products. For a description of material competitive activities, including litigation related to Paragraph IV notices, see Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report .

U.S. Branded - Sterile Injectables

This segment’s major competitors, including Hospira, Inc. (a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.), Fresenius Kabi, Mylan and Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, vary by product. A significant portion of our sales, including sales to over 5,500 hospitals, clinics and long-term care facilities in the U.S., are controlled by a relatively small number of GPOs, including HealthTrust Purchasing Group LP, Premier Inc. and Vizient Inc. Accordingly, it is important for us to have strong relationships with these GPOs and achieve on-time product launches in order to secure new bid opportunities.

Of the approximately 30 product families in our sterile injectables portfolio, 15 have fewer than two competitors and 17 have fewer than three competitors. Additional competitors increase the degree of price competition from generic forms of our products.

Generic Pharmaceuticals

In the generic pharmaceutical market, we face intense competition from other generic drug manufacturers, brand name pharmaceutical companies through authorized generics, existing brand equivalents and manufacturers of therapeutically similar drugs. Our major competitors in the generics market, including Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited (Teva), Mylan , Sandoz (a division of Novartis AG) and Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Amneal) vary by product.

A significant portion of our sales are made through a relatively small number of drug wholesalers and retail drug store chains. These customers play a key role in the distribution chain of our pharmaceutical products. Drug wholesalers and retail drug store chains have undergone, and are continuing to undergo, significant consolidation, which has resulted in these groups gaining additional purchasing leverage that has increased the pricing pressures on our business. Additionally, the emergence of large buying groups representing independent retail pharmacies and other drug distributors, and the prevalence and influence of managed care organizations and similar institutions increases the negotiating power of these groups, potentially enabling them to attempt to extract price discounts, rebates and other restrictive pricing terms on our products. For example, McKesson Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are party to an agreement to jointly source generic pharmaceuticals and Express Scripts, through a wholly owned subsidiary, Innovative Product Alignment, LLC, announced it will participate in the Walgreens Boots Alliance Development GmbH group purchasing organization. As a result of these alliances, the consolidation among wholesale distributors and the growth of large retail drug store chains, a small number of purchasers control a significant share of purchases and have gained more purchasing power that has heightened competition among generic drug producers for the business of this consolidated customer base.

Newly introduced generic products with limited or no other generic competition typically garner higher prices relative to commoditized generic products. As such, our primary strategy is to compete in the generic product market with a focus on high-value, first-to-file or first-to-market opportunities, regardless of therapeutic category, and products that present significant barriers to entry for reasons such as complex formulation or regulatory or legal challenges. For additional detail, see “ Our Competitive Strengths - Focus on the differentiated products of our generics and sterile injectables portfolios. ”

At the expiration of any statutory generic exclusivity period, other competitors may enter the market, resulting in significant price declines. Consequently, maintaining profitable operations in generic pharmaceuticals depends, in part, on our continuing ability to select, develop, procure regulatory approvals of, overcome legal challenges to, launch and commercialize new generic products in a timely and cost efficient manner and to maintain efficient, high quality manufacturing capabilities. For additional detail, see “ Our Competitive Strengths - Operational excellence. ”

Seasonality

Although our business is affected by the purchasing patterns and concentration of our customers, our business is not materially impacted by seasonality.

Major Customers

We primarily sell our generic and branded pharmaceuticals to wholesalers, retail drug store chains, supermarket chains, mass merchandisers, distributors, mail order accounts, hospitals and government agencies. Our wholesalers and distributors purchase products from us and, in turn, supply products to retail drug store chains, independent pharmacies and managed health care organizations. Customers in the managed health care market include health maintenance organizations, nursing homes, hospitals, clinics, pharmacy benefit management companies and mail order customers. Total revenues from direct customers that accounted for 10% or more of our total consolidated revenues during the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 are as follows:

Revenues from these customers are included within each of our segments.

As a result of consolidation among wholesale distributors and the growth of large retail drug store chains, a small number of large wholesale distributors control a significant share of the market, and the number of independent retail drug stores and small retail drug store chains has decreased. Some wholesale distributors have demanded that pharmaceutical manufacturers, including us, enter into distribution service agreements (DSAs) pursuant to which the wholesale distributors provide the pharmaceutical manufacturers with specific services, including the provision of periodic retail demand information and current inventory levels and other information. We have entered into certain of these agreements.

Patents, Trademarks, Licenses and Proprietary Property

As of February 21, 2019 , we held approximately: 225 U.S. issued patents, 50 U.S. patent applications pending, 476 foreign issued patents and 94 foreign patent applications pending. In addition, as of February 21, 2019 , we have licenses for approximately 46 U.S. issued patents, 8 U.S. patent applications pending, 172 foreign issued patents and 64 foreign patent applications pending. The following table sets forth information as of February 21, 2019 regarding patents relating to each of our most significant products:

The effect of these issued patents is that they provide us with protection by virtue of our ability to exclude others from making, using, selling, offering for sale and importing that which is covered by their claims. The coverage claimed in a patent application can be significantly reduced before the patent is issued. Accordingly, we do not know whether any of the applications we acquire or license will result in the issuance of patents or, if any patents are issued, whether they will provide significant proprietary protection or will be challenged, circumvented or invalidated. Because unissued U.S. patent applications are maintained in secrecy for a period of eighteen months and U.S. patent applications filed prior to November 29, 2000 are not disclosed until such patents are issued, and since publication of discoveries in the scientific or patent literature often lags behind actual discoveries, we cannot be certain of the priority of inventions covered by pending patent applications. Moreover, we may have to participate in interference and other inter-parties proceedings declared by the PTO to determine priority of invention, or in opposition proceedings in a foreign patent office, either of which could result in substantial cost to us, even if the eventual outcome is favorable to us. There can be no assurance that any patents, if issued, will be held valid by a court of competent jurisdiction. An adverse outcome could subject us to significant liabilities to third parties, require disputed rights to be licensed from third parties or require us to cease using such technology.

We believe that our patents, the protection of discoveries in connection with our development activities, our proprietary products, technologies, processes, trade secrets, know-how, innovations and all of our intellectual property are important to our business and achieving a competitive position. Many of our products are sold under trademarks. To achieve a competitive position, we rely on trade secrets, non-patented proprietary know-how and continuing technological innovation, where patent protection is not believed to be appropriate or attainable. In addition, as outlined above, we have a number of patent licenses from third parties, some of which may be important to our business. See Note 11. License and Collaboration Agreements in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report . There can be no assurance that any of our patents, licenses or other intellectual property rights will afford us any protection from competition.

We rely on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants and other parties to protect, among other things, trade secrets and other proprietary technology. There can be no assurance that these agreements will not be breached, that we will have adequate remedies for any breach, that others will not independently develop equivalent proprietary information or that other third parties will not otherwise gain access to our trade secrets and other intellectual property.

We may find it necessary to initiate litigation to enforce our patent rights, to protect our intellectual property or trade secrets or to determine the scope and validity of the proprietary rights of others. Litigation is costly and time-consuming, and there can be no assurance that our litigation expenses will not be significant in the future or that we will prevail in any such litigation. See Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report .

Governmental Regulation

United States Food and Drug Administration and Drug Enforcement Administration

The pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. is subject to extensive and rigorous government regulation. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and other federal and state statutes and regulations govern or influence the testing, manufacturing, packaging, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of pharmaceutical products. Noncompliance with applicable requirements can result in criminal prosecution, fines, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production and/or distribution, injunctions and refusal of the government to enter into supply contracts or to approve NDAs, ANDAs and/or BLAs.

FDA approval is typically required before any new drug can be marketed. An NDA or BLA is a filing submitted to the FDA to obtain approval of new chemical entities and other innovations for which thorough applied research is required to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in use. The process generally involves:

Clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases, although the phases may overlap.

Each trial is conducted in accordance with certain standards under protocols that detail the objectives of the study, the parameters to be used to monitor safety and the efficacy criteria to be evaluated. Each protocol must be submitted to the FDA as part of the Investigational New Drug application. Clinical trials are also subject to regulatory inspections by the FDA and other regulatory authorities to confirm compliance with applicable regulatory standards. The process of completing clinical trials for a new drug may take many years and require the expenditures of substantial resources. See Item 1A. Risk Factors - “ The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated, which creates uncertainty about our ability to bring new products to market and imposes substantial compliance costs on our business .”

As a condition of approval of an NDA or BLA, the FDA may require further studies, including Phase 4 post-marketing studies or post-marketing data reporting. Results of post-marketing programs may limit or expand the future marketing of the products.

For some drugs, the FDA may require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) to confirm that a drug’s benefits outweigh its risks. REMS could include medication guides, physician communication plans or other elements. See Item 1A. Risk Factors - “ The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated, which creates uncertainty about our ability to bring new products to market and imposes substantial compliance costs on our business .”

In most instances, FDA approval of an ANDA is required before a generic equivalent of an existing or reference-listed drug can be marketed. The ANDA process is abbreviated in that the FDA waives the requirement of conducting complete preclinical and clinical studies and generally instead relies principally on bioequivalence studies. Bioequivalence generally involves a comparison of the rate of absorption and levels of concentration of a generic drug in the body with those of the previously approved drug. When the rate and extent of absorption of systemically acting test and reference drugs are considered the same under the bioequivalence requirement, the two drugs are considered bioequivalent and are generally regarded as therapeutically equivalent, meaning that a pharmacist can substitute the product for the reference-listed drug. Under certain circumstances, an ANDA may also be submitted for a product authorized by approval of an ANDA suitability petition. Such petitions may be submitted to secure authorization to file an ANDA for a product that differs from a previously approved drug in active ingredient, route of administration, dosage form or strength. In September 2007 and July 2012, Congress re-authorized pediatric testing legislation, which now requires ANDAs approved via the suitability petition route to conduct pediatric testing. The timing of final FDA approval of ANDA applications depends on a variety of factors, including whether the applicant challenges any listed patents for the drug and whether the manufacturer of the reference-listed drug is entitled to one or more statutory exclusivity periods, during which the FDA is prohibited from approving generic products. In certain circumstances, a regulatory exclusivity period can extend beyond the life of a patent, thus blocking ANDAs from being approved until after the patent expiration date.

Certain of our products are or could become regulated and marketed as biologic products pursuant to BLAs. Our BLA-licensed products were licensed based on a determination by the FDA of safety, purity and potency as required under the Public Health Service Act (PHSA). Although the ANDA framework referenced above does not apply to generics of BLA-licensed biologics, there is an abbreviated licensure pathway for products deemed to be biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, FDA-licensed reference biological products pursuant to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009 (BPCIA). The BPCIA framework was enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and could be impacted by ongoing litigation regarding the legality of the PPACA. Under the BPCIA, following the expiration of a 12-year reference exclusivity period, the FDA may license, under section 351(k) of the PHSA, a biologic that it determines is biosimilar to, or interchangeable with, a reference product licensed under section 351(a) of the PHSA. Biosimilarity is defined to mean that the section 351(k) product is highly similar to the reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components, and that there are no clinically meaningful differences between the section 351(k) product and the reference product in terms of the safety, purity and potency. To be considered interchangeable, a product must be biosimilar to the reference product, be expected to produce the same clinical result as the reference product in any given patient and, if administered more than once to an individual, the risks in terms of safety or diminished efficacy of alternating or switching between use of the product and its reference product is not greater than the risk of using the reference product without such alternation or switch.

Once any regulatory exclusivity period for our BLA-licensed biologics expires, the FDA may approve another company’s BLA for a biosimilar or interchangeable version of our product. Although licensure of a biosimilar or interchangeable product is generally expected to require less than the full complement of product-specific preclinical and clinical data required for innovator products, the FDA has considerable discretion over the kind and amount of scientific evidence required to demonstrate biosimilarity and interchangeability.

Based on scientific developments, post-market experience or other legislative or regulatory changes, the current FDA standards of review for approving new pharmaceutical products are sometimes more stringent than those that were applied in the past, including for certain opioid products. As a result, the FDA does not have safety databases on these products that are as extensive as some products developed more recently. Accordingly, we believe the FDA has expressed an intention to develop such databases for certain of these products, including many opioids.

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) was signed into law on December 13, 2016. The Cures Act includes various provisions to accelerate the development and delivery of new treatments, such as those intended to expand the types of evidence manufacturers may submit to support FDA drug approval, to encourage patient-centered drug development, to liberalize the communication of healthcare economic information to payers and to create greater transparency with regard to manufacturer expanded access programs. Central to the Cures Act are provisions that enhance and accelerate the FDA’s processes for reviewing and approving new drugs and supplements to approved NDAs. These include, but are not limited to, provisions that (i) require the FDA to establish a program to evaluate the potential use of real-world evidence to help to support the approval of a new indication for an approved drug and to help to support or satisfy post-approval study requirements, (ii) provide that the FDA may rely upon qualified data summaries to support the approval of a supplemental application with respect to a qualified indication for an already approved drug, (iii) require the FDA to issue guidance for purposes of assisting sponsors in incorporating complex adaptive and other novel trial designs into proposed clinical protocols and applications for new drugs and (iv) require the FDA to establish a process for the qualification of drug development tools for use in supporting or obtaining FDA approval for or investigational use of a drug. The FDA has taken steps to implement the Cures Act, including issuing various guidance documents.

The Cures Act also included $1 billion in new funding to address what the act refers to as the “opioid abuse crisis.” Specifically, the Cures Act authorizes the awarding of grants to states for the purpose of addressing opioid abuse within each state, with preference to be given to states with an incidence or prevalence of opioid use disorders that is substantially higher relative to other states. Funding shall be used by states to supplement opioid abuse prevention and treatment activities, such as improving prescription drug monitoring programs, implementing prevention activities, providing training for health care providers and expanding access to opioid treatment programs. States receiving such grants shall be required to report on activities funded by the grant in the substance abuse block grant report.

We cannot determine what effect changes in the FDA’s laws or regulations (including legal or regulator interpretations), when and if promulgated, or advisory committee meetings may have on our business in the future. Changes could, among other things, require expanded or different labeling, additional testing, the recall or discontinuance of certain products and additional recordkeeping. See Item 1A. Risk Factors - “ The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated, which creates uncertainty about our ability to bring new products to market and imposes substantial compliance costs on our business .”

A sponsor of an NDA is required to identify, in its application, any patent that claims the drug or a use of the drug subject to the application. Upon NDA approval, the FDA lists these patents in a publication referred to as the Orange Book. Any person that files an ANDA or NDA under Section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA must make a certification in respect to any listed patents for the reference drug. The FDA may not approve such an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application until expiration of the reference drug’s listed patents unless (i) the generic applicant certifies that the listed patents are invalid, unenforceable or not infringed by the proposed generic drug and gives notice to the holder of the NDA for the listed drug of the basis upon which the patents are challenged and (ii) the holder of the listed drug does not sue the later applicant for patent infringement within 45 days of receipt of notice. Under the current law, if an infringement suit is filed, the FDA may not approve the later application until the earliest of: (i) 30 months after submission, (ii) entry of an appellate court judgment holding the patent invalid, unenforceable or not infringed, (iii) such time as a court may order or (iv) expiration of the patent.

One of the key motivators for challenging patents is the 180-day marketing exclusivity period granted to the developer of a generic version of a product that is the first to have its ANDA accepted for filing by the FDA and whose filing includes a certification that the applicable patent(s) are invalid, unenforceable and/or not infringed (a Paragraph IV certification) and that otherwise does not forfeit eligibility for the exclusivity. Under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (2003 Medicare Act), with accompanying amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act (Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act), this marketing exclusivity would begin to run upon the earlier of the commercial launch of the generic product or upon an appellate court decision in the generic company’s favor or in favor of another ANDA applicant who had filed with a Paragraph IV certification and has tentative approval. In addition, the holder of the NDA for the listed drug may be entitled to certain non-patent exclusivity during which, depending on the type of exclusivity, the FDA either cannot accept or approve an application for a competing ANDA generic product or 505(b)(2) NDA product with the same active moiety for a protected condition of use.

The FDA also regulates pharmacies and outsourcing facilities that prepare “compounded” drugs pursuant to section 503A and 503B of the FFDCA, respectively. For instance, pharmacies may compound drugs for an identified individual based on the receipt of a valid prescription order, or notation approved by the prescribing practitioner, that a compounded product is necessary for the identified patient. Similarly, outsourcing facilities may compound drugs and sell them to healthcare providers, but not wholesalers or distributors. Although section 503A pharmacies and section 503B outsourcing facilities are subject to many regulatory requirements, compounded drugs are not subject to premarket review by the FDA and, therefore, may not have the same level of safety and efficacy assurances of drugs subject to premarket review and approval by the FDA. Because they are not subject to premarket review, compounded drugs are frequently lower cost than either branded or generic drug products.

The FDA enforces regulations to require that the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, processing, packing and holding of drugs conform to cGMPs. The cGMP regulations the FDA enforces are comprehensive and cover all aspects of manufacturing operations. Compliance with the regulations requires a continuous commitment of time, money and effort in all operational areas.

The FDA conducts pre-approval inspections of facilities engaged in the development, manufacture, processing, packing, testing and holding of the drugs subject to NDAs and ANDAs. In addition, manufacturers of both pharmaceutical products and active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) used to formulate drugs also ordinarily undergo pre-approval inspections. Failure of any facility to pass a pre-approval inspection will result in delayed approval.

The FDA also conducts periodic inspections of drug facilities to assess the cGMP status of marketed products. Following such inspections, the FDA may issue an untitled letter as an initial correspondence that cites violations that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance for a Warning Letter. FDA guidelines also provide for the issuance of Warning Letters for violations of “regulatory significance” for which the failure to adequately and promptly achieve correction may be expected to result in an enforcement action. Finally, the FDA could issue a Form 483 Notice of Inspectional Observations, which could require modification to certain activities identified during the inspection. If the FDA were to find serious cGMP non-compliance during such an inspection, it could take regulatory actions.

Imported API and other components needed to manufacture our products could be rejected by U.S. Customs. In respect to domestic establishments, the FDA could initiate product seizures or request, or in some instances require, product recalls and seek to enjoin or otherwise limit a product’s manufacture and distribution. In certain circumstances, violations could support civil penalties and criminal prosecutions. In addition, if the FDA concludes that a company is not in compliance with cGMP requirements, sanctions may be imposed that include preventing that company from receiving the necessary licenses to export its products and classifying that company as an unacceptable supplier, thereby disqualifying that company from selling products to federal agencies.

Certain of our subsidiaries sell products that are “controlled substances” as defined in the CSA and implementing regulations, which establish certain security and recordkeeping requirements administered by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The DEA regulates chemical compounds as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances, with Schedule I substances considered to present the highest risk of substance abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest risk. The active ingredients in some of our products are listed by the DEA as Schedule II or III substances under the CSA. Consequently, their manufacture, shipment, storage, sale and use are subject to a high degree of regulation.

The DEA limits the availability of the active ingredients that are subject to the CSA used in several of our products as well as the production of these products. We or our contract manufacturing organizations must annually apply to the DEA for procurement and production quotas in order to obtain and produce these substances. As a result, our quotas may not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or complete clinical trials. Moreover, the DEA may adjust these quotas from time to time during the year, although the DEA has substantial discretion in whether or not to make such adjustments. See Item 1A. Risk Factors - “ The DEA limits the availability of the active ingredients used in many of our products as well as the production of these products, and, as a result, our procurement and production quotas may not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or complete clinical trials .”

To meet its responsibilities, the DEA conducts periodic inspections of registered establishments that handle controlled substances. Annual registration is required for any facility that manufactures, tests, distributes, dispenses, imports or exports any controlled substance. The facilities must have the security, control, accounting mechanisms and monitoring systems required by the DEA to prevent loss and diversion of controlled substances and to comply with reporting obligations. Failure to maintain compliance can result in enforcement action. The DEA may seek civil penalties, refuse to renew necessary registrations or initiate proceedings to revoke or restrict those registrations or, with the U.S. Department of Justice, seek to impose civil penalties. In certain circumstances, violations could result in criminal proceedings.

Individual states also regulate controlled substances and we, as well as our third-party API suppliers and manufacturers, are subject to such regulation by several states with respect to the manufacture and distribution of these products.

Government Benefit Programs

As described further in Item 1A. Risk Factors , statutory and regulatory requirements for government healthcare programs such as Medicaid, Medicare and TRICARE govern access and provider reimbursement levels, and provide for other cost-containment measures such as requiring pharmaceutical companies to pay rebates or refunds for certain sales of products reimbursed by such programs, or subjecting products to certain price ceilings. In addition to the cost-containment measures described in Item 1A. Risk Factors , drug sales to retail pharmacies under the TRICARE Retail Pharmacy Program are subject to certain price ceilings which require manufacturers to, among other things, pay refunds for prescriptions filled based on the applicable ceiling price limits. Beginning in the first quarter of 2017, pursuant to the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015, drug manufacturers are required to pay additional rebates to state Medicaid programs if the prices of their non-innovator drugs rise at a rate faster than inflation (as continues to be the case for innovator products).

The federal government may continue to pursue legislation aimed at containing or reducing payment levels for prescription pharmaceuticals paid for in whole or in part with government funds. State governments also may continue to enact similar cost containment or transparency legislation. These efforts could have material consequences for the pharmaceutical industry and the Company.

From time to time, legislative changes are made to government healthcare programs that impact our business. Congress continues to examine various Medicare and Medicaid policy proposals that may result in a downward pressure on the prices of prescription drugs in these programs. See Item 1A. Risk Factors - “ The availability of third party reimbursement for our products is uncertain, and thus we may find it difficult to maintain current price levels. Additionally, the market may not accept those products for which third party reimbursement is not adequately provided .”

Under the PPACA, pharmaceutical manufacturers of branded prescription drugs must pay an annual fee to the federal government. Each individual pharmaceutical manufacturer must pay a prorated share of the total industry fee (the fee was $3 billion for 2016, $4 billion for 2017 and $4.1 billion for 2018 and will be $2.8 billion in 2019 and for years thereafter) based on the dollar value of its branded prescription drug sales to specified federal programs. PPACA also expanded health insurance coverage to many previously uninsured Americans, through a combination of federal subsidies for lower-income individuals who enrolled in health plans through health insurance exchanges and enabling states to expand Medicaid eligibility with the federal government paying a high share of the cost.

Uncertainty continues to exist about the future of federal subsidies and of insurance coverage expansion as the current administration and congressional leaders continue to express interest in repealing these PPACA provisions and replacing them with alternatives that may be less costly and provide state Medicaid programs and private health plans more flexibility. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) repealed the requirement that individuals maintain health insurance coverage or face a penalty (known as the individual mandate). The removal of this provision, coupled with the threat of the repeal of other PPACA provisions, as well as the outcome of court challenges to the PPACA (including a December 2018 ruling in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas finding the PPACA to be unconstitutional, which is pending appeal), threaten the stability of the insurance marketplace and may have consequences for the coverage and accessibility of prescription drugs.

Healthcare Fraud and Abuse Laws

We are subject to various federal, state and local laws targeting fraud and abuse in the healthcare industry, violations of which can lead to civil and criminal penalties, including fines, imprisonment and exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs. These laws are potentially applicable to us as both a manufacturer and a supplier of products reimbursed by federal healthcare programs, and they also apply to hospitals, physicians and other potential purchasers of our products.

The federal Anti-Kickback Statute (42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b) prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal healthcare program such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Remuneration is not defined in the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example, gifts, discounts, coupons, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash, waivers of payments, ownership interests and providing anything at less than its fair market value. Under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute and the applicable criminal healthcare fraud statutes contained within 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, a person or entity need not have actual knowledge of this statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. In addition, the government may assert that a claim, including items or services resulting from a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b, constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the civil False Claims Act (discussed below) or the civil monetary penalties statute, which imposes fines against any person who is determined to have presented or caused to be presented claims to a federal healthcare program that the person knows or should know is for an item or service that was not provided as claimed or is false or fraudulent. The federal Anti-Kickback Statute and implementing regulations provide for certain exceptions for “safe harbors” for certain discounting, rebating or personal services arrangements, among other things. However, the lack of uniform court interpretation of the Anti-Kickback Statute makes compliance with the law difficult. Violations of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute can result in significant criminal fines, exclusion from participation in Medicare and Medicaid and follow-on civil litigation, among other things, for both entities and individuals.

Other federal healthcare fraud-related laws also provide criminal liability for violations. The Criminal Healthcare Fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1347, prohibits knowingly and willfully executing a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private third-party payers. Federal criminal law at 18 U.S.C. § 1001, among other sections, prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. See Item 1A. Risk Factors - “ We are subject to various regulations pertaining to the marketing of our products and services .”

The civil False Claims Act and similar state laws impose liability on any person or entity who, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment by a federal healthcare program. The qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act and similar state laws allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal or state government and to share in any monetary recovery. The Federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act and similar state laws impose reporting requirements for various types of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals. Failure to comply with reporting requirements under these laws could subject manufacturers and others to substantial civil money penalties. In addition, government entities and private litigants have asserted claims under state consumer protection statutes against pharmaceutical and medical device companies for alleged false or misleading statements in connection with the marketing, promotion and/or sale of pharmaceutical and medical device products, including state investigations of the Company regarding the Company’s vaginal mesh devices and investigations and litigation by certain government entities regarding the Company’s marketing of opioid products.

International Regulations

Through our international operations, the Company is subject to laws and regulations that differ from those under which the Company operates in the U.S. In most cases, non-U.S. regulatory agencies evaluate and monitor the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products, govern the approval of clinical trials and product registrations and regulate pricing and reimbursement. Certain international markets have differing product preferences and requirements and operate in an environment of government-mandated, cost-containment programs, including price controls, such as the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board in Canada. Certain governments have placed restrictions on physician prescription levels and patient reimbursements, emphasized greater use of generic drugs and enacted across-the-board price cuts as methods of cost control.

Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained for a product, approval of the product by comparable regulatory authorities of other governments must be obtained prior to marketing the product in those jurisdictions. The approval process may be more or less rigorous than the U.S. process and the time required for approval may be longer or shorter than is required in the U.S.

Service Agreements

We contract with various third parties to provide certain critical services including manufacturing, supply, warehousing, distribution, customer service, certain financial functions, certain research and development activities and medical affairs.

For a description of our significant manufacturing, supply and other service agreements, see Note 11. License and Collaboration Agreements and Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report .

We primarily purchase our raw materials for the production and development of our products in the open market from third party suppliers. However, some raw materials are only available from one source. We attempt, when possible, to mitigate our raw material supply risks through inventory management and alternative sourcing strategies. We are required to identify the suppliers of all raw materials for our products in the drug applications that we file with the FDA. If the raw materials from an approved supplier for a particular product become unavailable, we would be required to qualify a substitute supplier with the FDA, which would likely interrupt manufacturing of the affected product. See Item 1A. Risk Factors for further discussion on the risks associated with the sourcing of our raw materials.

License & Collaboration Agreements and Acquisitions

We continue to seek to enhance our product line and develop a balanced portfolio of differentiated products through product acquisitions and in-licensing, or acquiring licenses to products, compounds and technologies from third parties. The Company enters into strategic alliances and collaborative arrangements with third parties, which give the Company rights to develop, manufacture, market and/or sell pharmaceutical products, the rights to which are primarily owned by these third parties. These alliances and arrangements can take many forms, including licensing arrangements, co-development and co-marketing agreements, co-promotion arrangements, research collaborations and joint ventures. Such alliances and arrangements enable us to share the risk of incurring all research and development expenses that do not lead to revenue-generating products; however, because profits from alliance products are shared with the counter-parties to the collaborative arrangement, the gross margins on alliance products are generally lower, sometimes substantially so, than the gross margins that could be achieved had the Company not opted for a development partner. For a discussion of material agreements and acquisitions, including agreement terms and status, see our disclosures in Note 5. Acquisitions and Note 11. License and Collaboration Agreements in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report .

Environmental Matters

Our operations are subject to substantial federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations concerning, among other matters, the generation, handling, storage, transportation, treatment and disposal of, and exposure to, hazardous substances. Violation of these laws and regulations, which may change, can lead to substantial fines and penalties. Many of our operations require environmental permits and controls to prevent and limit pollution of the environment. We believe that our facilities and the facilities of our third party service providers are in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and we do not believe that future compliance will have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Employees

As of February 21, 2019 , we have 2,910 employees, of which 432 are engaged in research and development and regulatory work, 390 in sales and marketing, 1,070 in manufacturing, 557 in quality assurance and 461 in general and administrative capacities. Our employees are generally not represented by unions, with the exception of certain production personnel in our Rochester, Michigan manufacturing facility. We believe that our relations with our employees are good.

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The following table sets forth information as of February 28, 2019 regarding each of our current executive officers:

Biographies

Our executive officers are briefly described below:

PAUL V. CAMPANELLI, was appointed President, Chief Executive Officer and a Director effective September 23, 2016. Mr. Campanelli joined Endo in 2015 as the President of Par Pharmaceutical, leading Endo’s fully integrated U.S. Generics business, following Endo’s acquisition of Par Pharmaceutical. Prior to joining Endo, he had served as Chief Executive Officer of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. following the company’s September 2012 acquisition by TPG. Prior to the TPG acquisition, Mr. Campanelli served as Chief Operating Officer and President of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. from 2011 to 2012. At Par Pharmaceutical Inc., Mr. Campanelli had also served as Senior Vice President, Business Development & Licensing; Executive Vice President and President of Par Pharmaceutical, Inc.; and was named a Corporate Officer by its board of directors. He also served on the board of directors of Sky Growth Holdings Corporation from 2012 until 2015. Mr. Campanelli joined Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. in 2001. Prior to joining Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Mr. Campanelli served as Vice President, Business Development at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. where he was employed from 1992 to 2001. Mr. Campanelli earned his Bachelor of Science degree from Springfield College.

BLAISE COLEMAN, was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer effective December 19, 2016. Mr. Coleman was serving as Endo's Interim Chief Financial Officer since November 22, 2016. He joined Endo in January 2015 as Vice President of Corporate Financial Planning & Analysis, and was then promoted to Senior Vice President, Global Finance Operations in November 2015. Prior to joining Endo, Mr. Coleman held a number of finance leadership roles with AstraZeneca, a global biopharmaceutical company, most recently as the Chief Financial Officer of the AstraZeneca/Bristol-Myers Squibb US Diabetes Alliance from January 2013 until January 2015. Prior to that, he was the Head of Finance for the AstraZeneca Global Medicines Development organization based in Mölndal, Sweden from September 2011 to January 2013. Mr. Coleman joined AstraZeneca as Senior Director Commercial Finance for the US Cardiovascular Business in November 2007. He joined AstraZeneca from Centocor, a wholly owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, where he held positions in both the Licenses & Acquisitions and Commercial Finance organizations. Mr. Coleman’s move to Centocor in early 2003 followed 7 years’ experience with the global public accounting firm, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP. Mr. Coleman is a Certified Public Accountant; he holds a Bachelor of Science degree in accounting from Widener University and an M.B.A. from the Fuqua School of Business at Duke University.

TERRANCE J. COUGHLIN, was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer effective November 1, 2016. In this role, Mr. Coughlin has responsibility for Manufacturing and Technical Operations and R&D across the enterprise. Most recently, Mr. Coughlin served as Vice President, Operations of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., a subsidiary of Endo. Prior to Endo’s acquisition of Par in September 2015, Mr. Coughlin was the Chief Operating Officer of Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc. Prior to joining Par, Mr. Coughlin held a number of leadership roles with Glenmark Generics, Inc. USA/Glenmark Generics Limited latterly as the President and Chief Executive Officer of Glenmark Generics, Inc. USA/Glenmark Generics Limited. Prior to this, Mr. Coughlin had the overall responsibility for Glenmark’s North American, Western European and Eastern European generics businesses, as well as its global active pharmaceutical ingredient business and generics operations in India. Prior to joining Glenmark, Mr. Coughlin served as Senior Vice President at Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. Mr. Coughlin began his career in 1988 with Wyckoff Chemical Company, Inc. Mr. Coughlin earned a B.S. in chemistry from Central Michigan University.

TONY PERA, was named President, Par Pharmaceutical effective November 1, 2016. In this role, Mr. Pera leads Endo’s U.S. Generics business including responsibility and oversight of Par Generic and Par Sterile sales teams, as well as Par’s marketing & business analytics group. Most recently, Mr. Pera served as Chief Commercial Officer of Par Pharmaceutical. He joined Par in February 2014 as part of Par’s acquisition of JHP Pharmaceutical, where he held a similar position. As Chief Commercial Officer, Mr. Pera was responsible for all sales, marketing, pricing and customer operations functions for Par. Prior to JHP and Par, Mr. Pera was Senior Vice President of Supply Chain Management for AmerisourceBergen (ABC), a major U.S. pharmaceutical wholesaler, for approximately five years. Prior to ABC, he held numerous senior leadership positions with generic drug companies including APP (now Fresenius Kabi), Bedford Laboratories and LyphoMed. Mr. Pera started his career as a sales representative for the parenteral products division of Baxter. Mr. Pera holds a B.S. in Business Administration from the University of Illinois in Champaign and an M.B.A. from DePaul University.

MATTHEW J. MALETTA, was appointed Executive Vice President, Chief Legal Officer effective May 4, 2015. Prior to joining Endo, Mr. Maletta served as Vice President, Associate General Counsel and Corporate Secretary of Allergan, Inc. In this position, he served as an advisor to the CEO and Board of Directors and supervised several large M&A transactions and takeover defense activities, including Allergan’s acquisition of Inamed and Actavis’ acquisition of Allergan. Mr. Maletta first joined Allergan in 2002 as Corporate Counsel and Assistant Secretary and during his tenure, held various roles of increased responsibility. Prior to joining Allergan, Mr. Maletta was in private practice, focusing on general corporate matters, finance, governance, securities and transactions. He holds a B.A. degree in political science from the University of Minnesota, summa cum laude, and a J.D. degree, cum laude, from the University of Minnesota Law School.

PATRICK BARRY, was appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer effective February 26, 2018. In this role, he has responsibility for all commercial activities for U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals, including strategy, new product planning, marketing, sales as well as managed care and patient access responsibilities. Mr. Barry joined Endo in December 2016 as Senior Vice President, U.S. Branded Pharmaceuticals. Prior to joining Endo, Mr. Barry worked at Sanofi S.A. from April 1992 until December 2016, holding roles of increasing responsibility in areas such as Sales Leadership, Commercial Operations, Marketing, Launch Planning and Training and Leadership Development. Most recently, he served at Sanofi S.A. as its General Manager and Head of North America General Medicines starting in September 2015 and as Vice President and Head of U.S. Specialty from April 2014 until August 2015. During this time, Mr. Barry oversaw three complex and diverse businesses with responsibility for leading sales and marketing activities for branded and generic products across the U.S. and Canada. He has a diverse therapeutic experience including aesthetics and dermatology, oncology, urology, orthopedics and medical device and surgical experience. He has an M.B.A. from Cornell University, Johnson School of Management and a B.A. in Public Relations and Marketing from McKendree University.

We have employment agreements with each of our executive officers.

Available Information

Our internet address is www.endo.com. The contents of our website are not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and our internet address is included in this document as an inactive textual reference only. We make our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and all amendments to those reports available free of charge on our website as soon as reasonably practicable after we file such reports with, or furnish such reports to, the Securities and Exchange Commission.

You can access our filings through the SEC’s internet site: www.sec.gov (intended to be an inactive textual reference only).

You may also access copies of the Company’s filings with the Canadian Securities Administrators on SEDAR through their internet site: www.sedar.com (intended to be an inactive textual reference only).

Item 1A.      Risk Factors

We operate in a highly competitive industry.

The pharmaceutical industry is intensely competitive and we face competition in both our domestic and international branded and generic pharmaceutical business. In addition to product development and technological innovation, safety, efficacy, commercialization, marketing and promotion, other competitive factors include product quality and price, cost-effectiveness, reputation, service and patient convenience and access to scientific and technical information. Many of our competitors, including Teva, Mylan, Sandoz, Amneal, Allergan, Purdue, Jazz, Takeda, Horizon and Mallinckrodt, among others, and any future companies that may enter the industry or modify their existing products to compete directly with our products, may have greater resources than we do and we cannot predict with certainty the timing or impact of competitors’ products and commercialization strategies. Furthermore, recent trends in this industry are toward further market consolidation of large drug companies into a smaller number of very large entities, further concentrating financial, technical and market strength and increasing competitive pressure in the industry. It is possible that our competitors may make greater research and development investments and have more efficient or superior processes and systems and more experience in the development of new products that permit our competitors to respond more quickly to new or emerging technologies and changes in customer requirements which may make our products or technologies uncompetitive or obsolete. Furthermore, academic institutions, government agencies and other public and private organizations conducting research may seek patent protection and may establish collaborative arrangements for competitive products or programs. If we fail to compete successfully, our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Our branded products face competition from generic versions. Such versions are generally significantly cheaper than branded versions and, where available, may be required or encouraged in place of the branded version under third-party reimbursement programs, or required by law to be substituted by pharmacies for branded versions. The entrance of such competition to our branded products generally reduces our market share and adversely affects our profitability and cash flows. Further, certain Asian and other overseas generic competitors may be able to produce products at costs lower than the costs of domestic manufacturers. If we experience substantial competition from Asian or other overseas generic competitors with lower production costs, our profit margins will suffer. In addition, certain of our branded products are not protected by patent rights or have limited patent life and will soon lose patent protection. Loss of patent protection for a branded product typically is followed promptly by generic substitutes. As a result, sales of many of these branded products may decline or stop growing over time. Generic competition with our branded products has had and will continue to have a material adverse effect on the market share, net sales and profitability of our branded products. In addition, legislative proposals emerge from time to time in various jurisdictions to further encourage the early and rapid approval of generic drugs. Any such proposal that is enacted into law could increase competition and worsen this negative effect on our sales and profitability.

In addition, our generics business faces competition from brand-name pharmaceutical companies, which have taken aggressive steps to thwart or delay competition from generic equivalents of their brand-name products, including bringing litigation alleging patent infringement or other violation of intellectual property rights. The actions taken by competing brand name pharmaceutical companies may increase the costs and risks associated with our efforts to introduce generic products and may delay or prevent such introduction altogether. For example, if a brand-name pharmaceutical company’s patent was held to be valid and infringed by our generic products in a particular jurisdiction, we would be required to either obtain a license from the patent holder or cease the manufacture and sale of such generic product.

Our sales may also suffer as a result of changes in consumer demand for our products, including those related to fluctuations in consumer buying patterns tied to seasonality or the introduction of new products by competitors, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows. Additionally, a significant portion of our revenue from our branded businesses are derived from a limited number of products. The sale of our products can be significantly influenced by market conditions and regulatory actions. We may experience decreases in the sale of our products in the future as a result of actions taken by our competitors, such as price reductions, or as a result of regulatory actions related to our products or to competing products. A decline in the sales value of these products could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

If generic manufacturers use litigation and regulatory means to obtain approval for generic versions of our branded drugs, our sales may suffer .

Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, the FDA can approve an ANDA for a generic bioequivalent version of a previously approved drug without requiring the ANDA applicant to undertake the full clinical testing necessary to obtain approval to market a new branded drug. In place of such clinical studies, an ANDA applicant usually needs only to submit data demonstrating that its generic product is the same as the referenced listed drug with respect to the active ingredient and is bioequivalent to the branded product.

Various generic manufacturers have filed ANDAs seeking FDA approval for generic versions of certain of our key pharmaceutical products including, but not limited to, LIDODERM ^® , VASOSTRICT ^® and AVEED ^® . In connection with such filings, these manufacturers have challenged the validity and/or enforceability of one or more of the underlying patents protecting our products. In the case of LIDODERM ^® , we no longer have patent protection in the markets where we sell these products. Our revenues from LIDODERM ^® have been negatively affected by multiple competing generic versions of LIDODERM ^® , the first of which launched in September 2013. We anticipate that these revenues could decrease further should one or more additional generic versions of LIDODERM ^® launch.

With respect to AVEED ^® , VASOSTRICT ^® and other branded pharmaceutical products, it has been and continues to be our practice to vigorously defend and pursue all available legal and regulatory avenues in defense of the intellectual property rights protecting our products. Despite our efforts to defend our products, litigation is inherently uncertain, and we cannot predict the timing or outcome of our efforts. If we are not successful in defending our intellectual property rights or opt to settle, or if a product’s marketing exclusivity rights expire or become otherwise unenforceable, our competitors could ultimately launch generic versions of our products, which would likely cause sales and revenues of the affected products to decline rapidly and materially, could require us to write off a portion or all of the intangible assets associated with the affected product and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

In the case of VASOSTRICT ^® , Par Sterile Products, LLC (PSP) and Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. (PPI) received a notice letter from Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Eagle) in April 2018 advising of the filing by such company of an ANDA for a generic version of VASOSTRICT ^® (vasopressin IV solution (infusion)). The Paragraph IV notice refers to patents the Company has listed in the Orange Book covering either vasopressin-containing pharmaceutical compositions or methods of using a vasopressin-containing dosage form to increase blood pressure in humans. In May 2018, PPI, PSP and Endo Par Innovation Company, LLC (EPIC) filed a lawsuit against Eagle in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware within the 45-day deadline to invoke a 30-month stay of FDA approval pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman legislative scheme. We intend to vigorously defend VASOSTRICT ^® ’s intellectual property rights and to pursue all available legal, business and regulatory avenues in defense of VASOSTRICT ^® , including enforcement of the product’s intellectual property rights. However, there can be no assurance that our defense will be successful. If a generic version of VASOSTRICT ^® were introduced to the market before 2020, our revenues from VASOSTRICT ^® would decrease significantly and, depending on the timing of such introduction and its effect on VASOSTRICT ^® pricing, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

There are currently ongoing legal proceedings brought by us and/or our subsidiaries, and in certain cases our third party partners, against manufacturers seeking FDA approval for generic versions of our products. For a description of the material related legal proceedings, see Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report .

We also believe it is likely that generic manufacturers may seek FDA approvals for generic versions of other of our key pharmaceutical products, either through the filing of ANDAs or the use of other means.

If pharmacies or outsourcing facilities produce compounded versions of our products, our sales may suffer.

Under section 503A of the FFDCA, licensed pharmacies may sell compounded versions of prescription drugs that have been prepared for individual patients based on the receipt of a valid prescription order or notation. Similarly, under section 503B of the FFDCA, outsourcing facilities may sell compounded versions of prescription drugs to healthcare providers. In January 2017, the FDA revised its policy to allow outsourcing facilities to “nominate” bulk drug substances that can be used to prepare compounded drugs under section 503B, although that policy is the subject of a pending legal challenge by us. Compounded drugs do not typically require the same R&D investments as either branded or generic drugs and, therefore, can compete favorably on price with both branded and generic versions of a drug. To the extent that pharmacies or outsourcing facilities introduce compounded versions of our products, our market share could be reduced and our profitability and cash flows could be adversely affected.

If we fail to successfully identify and develop additional generic pharmaceutical products, obtain exclusive marketing rights for our generic products or fail to introduce these generic products on a timely basis, our revenues, gross margin and operating results may decline.

We may not be successful in our efforts to continue to create a pipeline of product candidates or develop commercially successful products. Identifying, developing and obtaining regulatory approval and commercializing additional product candidates is prone to risks of failure inherent in drug development. For example, our research programs may initially show promise in identifying potential additional product candidates, yet fail to yield results for a number of reasons, including, among others, that the research methodology used may not be successful. No assurance can be given that we will be able to successfully identify additional product candidates, advance any additional product candidates through the development process or successfully commercialize any such additional product candidates. If we are unable to successfully identify, develop and commercialize additional product candidates, our revenues and operating results may decline significantly and our prospects and business may be materially adversely affected.

Even if we are able to identify and develop additional product candidates, we may fail to obtain exclusive marketing rights for such product candidates or fail to introduce such product candidates on a timely basis. Subject to certain exceptions and limitations, the Hatch-Waxman amendments to the FFDCA provide for a period of 180 days of marketing exclusivity for a generic version of a previously approved drug for any applicant that is the first to file an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV certification of invalidity, non-infringement or unenforceability related to a patent listed with respect to the corresponding brand-name drug. Our revenues have historically included and may from time to time continue to include sales of generic drugs with limited competition resulting from this 180-day marketing exclusivity period or other factors, and the amounts of such revenues may be material. ANDAs that contain Paragraph IV certifications challenging patents generally become the subject of patent litigation that can be both lengthy and costly. There is no certainty that we will prevail in any such litigation, that we will be the first to file and be granted the 180-day marketing exclusivity period or, if we are granted the 180-day marketing exclusivity period, that we will not forfeit such period. Even where we are awarded marketing exclusivity, we may be required to share our exclusivity period with other ANDA applicants who submit Paragraph IV certifications. In addition, brand-name pharmaceutical companies often authorize a generic version of the corresponding brand-name drug to be sold during any period of marketing exclusivity that is awarded. Authorized generics are not prohibited from sale during the 180-day marketing exclusivity period. Furthermore, timely commencement of the litigation by the patent owner imposes an automatic stay of ANDA approval by the FDA for 30 months unless the case is decided in the ANDA applicant’s favor during that period. Finally, if the court decision is adverse to the ANDA applicant, the ANDA approval will be delayed until the challenged patent expires and the applicant will not be granted 180 days of marketing exclusivity.

Our future profitability depends, to a significant extent, upon our ability to introduce, on a timely basis, new generic products that are either the first-to-market (or among the first-to-market) or that otherwise can gain significant market share during this 180-day marketing exclusivity period. Our ability to timely bring new generic products to market is dependent upon, among other things, the timing of regulatory approval of such products that, to a large extent, is outside of our control. Our revenues and future profitability are dependent, in large part, upon our ability or the ability of our development partners to file, timely and effectively, ANDAs with the FDA or similar filings with other regulatory agencies, or to enter into contractual relationships with other parties that have obtained marketing exclusivity, as well as the timing and extent of the commercialization by others of competing products. No assurances can be given that we will be able to develop and introduce commercially successful products in the future within the time constraints necessary to be successful. If we and/or our development partners are unable to continue to timely and effectively file ANDAs with the FDA or similar filings with other regulatory agencies, or to partner with other parties that have obtained marketing exclusivity, our revenues and operating results may decline significantly and our prospects and business may be materially adversely affected.

We have been, continue to be and may be the subject of lawsuits, product liability claims, other significant legal proceedings, government investigations or product recalls for which we may be unable to obtain or maintain insurance adequate to cover potential liabilities .

Our business exposes us to significant potential risks from lawsuits, product liability claims, other significant legal proceedings, government investigations or product recalls, including, but not limited to, such matters associated with the testing, manufacturing, marketing and sale of our products. Some plaintiffs have received substantial damage awards in some jurisdictions against healthcare companies based upon various legal theories, including without limitation claims for injuries allegedly caused by the use of their products. We have been, continue to be and may be subject to various product liability cases, as well as other significant legal proceedings and government investigations.

For example, we and our subsidiaries, along with other manufacturers of prescription opioid medications, are the subject of lawsuits and have received subpoenas and other requests for information from various state and local government agencies regarding the sale, marketing and/or distribution of prescription opioid medications. Numerous claims against opioid manufacturers have been and may continue to be filed by or on behalf of states, counties, cities, Native American tribes, other government-related persons or entities, hospitals, health systems, unions, health and welfare funds, other third-party payers and/or individuals. See Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report for more information. In these cases, plaintiffs seek various remedies, including without limitation, declaratory and/or injunctive relief; compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages; restitution, disgorgement, civil penalties, abatement, attorneys’ fees, costs and/or other relief. In addition to direct expenditures for damages, settlement and defense costs in connection with these claims, proceedings and investigations, there is a possibility of loss of revenues, injunctions and disruption of business. Furthermore, we and other manufacturers of prescription opioid medications have been, and will likely continue to be, subject to negative publicity and press, which could harm our brand and the demand for our products. There are also regulatory and legislative proposals being made that could impact us and other manufacturers of prescription opioid medications. See the risk factor “ Our business and financial condition may be adversely affected by legislation ” for more information.

Our current and former products may cause, or may appear to cause, serious adverse side effects or potentially dangerous drug interactions if misused or improperly prescribed or as a result of faulty surgical technique. For example, we and/or certain of our subsidiaries and certain other manufacturers have been named as defendants in multiple lawsuits in various federal and state courts alleging personal injury resulting from use of transvaginal surgical mesh products designed to treat pelvic organ prolapse and stress urinary incontinence. The FDA held a public advisory committee meeting in February 2019 during which the members of the Obstetrics and Gynecology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee discussed and made recommendations regarding the safety and effectiveness of surgical mesh to treat pelvic organ prolapse. Although we have not sold transvaginal surgical mesh products since March 2016, it is possible that the outcome of the advisory committee meeting and the FDA’s actions, if any, based on the outcome of the advisory committee meeting could result in additional litigation against the Company. See Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report for more information.

Any failure to effectively identify, analyze, report and protect adverse event data and/or to fully comply with relevant laws, rules and regulations around adverse event reporting could expose the Company to penalties, fines and reputational damage.

In addition, in the age of social media, plaintiffs’ attorneys have a wide variety of tools to advertise their services and solicit new clients for litigation, including using judgments obtained in litigation against other pharmaceutical companies as an advertising tool. For these or other reasons, any significant product liability or mass tort litigation in which we are a defendant could have a larger number of plaintiffs than such actions have seen historically and we could also see an increase in number of cases filed against us because of the increasing use of widespread and media-varied advertising. Furthermore, a ruling against other pharmaceutical companies in product liability or mass tort litigation in which we are not a defendant could have a negative impact on pending litigation where we are a defendant.

In addition, in the case of products that do not meet approved specifications or for which subsequent data demonstrate such products may be unsafe, ineffective or misused, it may be necessary for us to initiate voluntary or mandatory recalls or withdraw such products from the market. Any such recall or withdrawal could result in adverse publicity, costs connected to the recall and loss of revenue. Adverse publicity could also result in an increased number of additional product liability claims, whether or not these claims have a basis in scientific fact. See the risk factor “ Public concern around the abuse of opioids, including law enforcement concerns over diversion and marketing of opioids, and regulatory efforts to combat abuse, could result in costs to our business ” for more information.

If we are found liable in any lawsuits, such as a product liability claim or series of claims, including those described above and below, or in connection with other legal proceedings, including those related to sales, marketing or pricing practices, government investigations, product recalls or the sale, marketing and/or distribution of prescription opioid medications, it could result in the imposition of damages, including punitive damages, substantial fines, significant reputational harm, civil lawsuits and criminal penalties, interruptions of business, modification of business practices, equitable remedies and other sanctions against us or our personnel as well as significant legal and other costs. We may also voluntarily settle cases even if we believe that we have meritorious defenses because of the significant legal and other costs that may be required to defend such actions. As a result, we may experience significant negative impacts on our operations. To satisfy judgments or settlements, we also may need to seek financing, which may not be available on terms acceptable to us, or at all, when required. Judgments also could cause defaults under our debt agreements and/or restrictions on our product use and we could incur losses as a result. Any of the risks above could materially and adversely impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, liquidity and cash flows.

Any such result may cause us to pursue one or more remedial measures, including internal reorganizations and/or other restructuring activities, strategic corporate alignment and cost-saving initiatives or other significant corporate transactions . See the risk factor “ Our ability to fund our operations, maintain liquidity and meet our financing obligations is reliant on our operations, which are subject to significant risks and uncertainties ” for more information. Likewise, any internal reorganizations and/or other restructuring activities, strategic corporate alignment and cost-saving initiatives or other significant corporate transactions may be complex, could entail significant cost and charges or could otherwise negatively impact shareholder value and there can be no assurance that we will be able to accomplish any of these alternatives on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

We may not have and may be unable to obtain or maintain in the future product liability insurance on acceptable terms or with adequate coverage against potential liabilities or other losses, such as the cost of a recall, if any claim is brought against us, regardless of the success or failure of the claim. For example, we generally no longer have product liability insurance to cover the claims in connection with the mesh-related litigation described above. Additionally, we may be limited by the surviving insurance policies of our acquired subsidiaries, which may not be adequate to cover against potential liabilities or other losses. Even where claims are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, there can be no assurance that the claims will be fully covered by insurance or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. The failure to generate sufficient cash flow or to obtain other financing could affect our ability to pay the amounts due under those liabilities not covered by insurance.

See Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report for further discussion of the forgoing and other material legal proceedings.

Our ability to fund our operations, maintain liquidity and meet our financing obligations is reliant on our operations, which are subject to significant risks and uncertainties .

We rely on cash from operations as well as access to the financial markets to fund our operations, maintain liquidity and meet our financial obligations. Our operations are subject to many significant risks and uncertainties, such as the risks described in this “Risk Factors” section, several of which may be outside of our control. These risks and uncertainties include competition from, and legal challenge by, generic manufacturers, such as those challenging the validity and/or enforceability of our products or filing ANDAs seeking FDA approval of generic versions of certain of our key products, including VASOSTRICT ^® . See the risk factor “ If generic manufacturers use litigation and regulatory means to obtain approval for generic versions of our branded drugs, our sales may suffer ” for more information. Additionally, we face significant risks and uncertainties relating to our outstanding and future legal proceedings and governmental investigations, including those related to our sale, marketing and/or distribution of prescription opioid medications. See the risk factor “ We have been, continue to be and may be the subject of lawsuits, product liability claims, other significant legal proceedings, government investigations or product recalls for which we may be unable to obtain or maintain insurance adequate to cover potential liabilities ” for more information. Any negative development or outcome in connection with any or all of these risks and uncertainties could result in significant consequences, including one or more of the following:

If we are unable to fund our operations and liquidity needs, such as future capital expenditures and payment of our indebtedness, we may be required to refinance all or part of our then-existing indebtedness, sell assets, reduce or delay capital expenditures, seek to raise additional capital, pursue one or more internal reorganizations and/or other restructuring activities, strategic corporate alignment and cost-saving initiatives or other significant corporate transactions , any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial condition. Any refinancing of our substantial indebtedness could be at significantly higher interest rates, which will depend on the conditions of the markets and our financial condition at such time, and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. In addition, the terms of existing or future debt agreements may restrict us from adopting any of these alternatives. Likewise, any internal reorganizations and/or other restructuring activities, strategic corporate alignment and cost-saving initiatives or other significant corporate transactions may be complex, could entail significant costs and charges or could otherwise negatively impact shareholder value and there can be no assurance that we will be able to accomplish any of these alternatives on terms acceptable to us, or at all. The failure to generate sufficient liquidity or to achieve any of these alternatives could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to protect and maintain our proprietary and licensed third party technology, which is vital to our business, is uncertain.

Our success, competitive position and future income will depend in part on our ability to obtain and protect patent rights relating to our current and future technologies, processes and products. Our policy is to seek patent protection for technologies, processes and products we own and to enforce the intellectual property rights we own and license. The patent applications we submit and have submitted may not result in patents being issued. If an invention qualifies as a joint invention, the joint inventor may have intellectual property rights in the invention, which it might not protect. A third party may infringe upon, design around or develop uses not covered by any patent issued or licensed to us and our patents may not otherwise be commercially viable. In this regard, the patent position of pharmaceutical compounds and compositions is particularly uncertain. Even issued patents may later be modified or revoked by the PTO, by comparable foreign patent offices or by a court following legal proceedings. Laws relating to such rights may in the future also be changed or withdrawn. Upon the expiration or loss of necessary intellectual property protection for a product, others may manufacture and distribute such patented product, which will result in the loss of a significant portion of our sales of that product.

In addition, our success, particularly in our branded businesses, depends in part on the ability of our partners and suppliers to obtain, maintain and enforce patents and protect trademarks, trade secrets, know-how and other intellectual property and proprietary information. Our ability to commercialize any branded product successfully will largely depend upon our and/or our partners’ or suppliers’ ability to obtain and maintain patents and trademarks of sufficient scope to lawfully prevent third-parties from developing and/or marketing infringing products.

The degree of protection any patents will afford is uncertain, including whether the protection obtained will be of sufficient breadth and degree to protect our commercial interests in all the jurisdictions where we conduct business. The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its claim scope, validity or enforceability. These patent rights may be challenged, revoked, invalidated, infringed or circumvented by third parties. The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies, including us, are generally uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions. There is no assurance that any of our patent claims in our pending non-provisional and provisional patent applications relating to our technologies, processes or products will be issued or, if issued, that any of our existing and future patent claims will be held valid and enforceable against third-party infringement. Moreover, any patent claims relating to our technologies, processes and products may not be sufficiently broad to protect our technologies, processes and products. Our patent claims may not afford us protection against competitors with similar technology. It is possible that we could incur significant costs and management distraction if we are required to initiate litigation against others to protect or enforce our intellectual property rights. Such patent disputes may be lengthy and a potential violator of our patents may bring a potentially infringing product to market during the dispute, subjecting us to competition and damages due to infringement of the competitor product. No assurance can be given that, if challenged, our patents would be declared by the PTO, comparable foreign patent offices or a court to be valid or enforceable or that, even if found valid and enforceable, a competitor’s technology or product would be found by a court to infringe our patents.

Furthermore, our products may infringe on the patents or other intellectual property rights held by third parties. It is also possible that third parties will obtain patent or other proprietary rights that might be necessary or useful for the development, manufacture or sale of our products. If we infringe on the intellectual property rights of others, we could lose our right to develop, manufacture or sell products or we could be required to pay monetary damages or royalties to license proprietary rights from third parties and we may not be able to obtain such licenses on commercially reasonable terms or at all. An adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding or a failure to obtain necessary licenses could prevent us from manufacturing or selling our products.

The Company also relies on trade secrets and other unpatented proprietary information, which it generally seeks to protect by confidentiality and nondisclosure agreements with its employees, consultants, advisors and partners. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide the Company with an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure. For example, in August 2017, we filed a complaint against QuVa Pharma, Inc. and certain individual defendants in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging misappropriation in violation of the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act, New Jersey’s Trade Secrets Act and New Jersey common law, as well as unfair competition, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of the duty of loyalty, tortious interference with contractual relations and breach of the duty of confidence in connection with VASOSTRICT ^® , a vasopressin-based cardiopulmonary drug. For more information regarding this litigation, see Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report . Even if third parties misappropriate or infringe upon our proprietary rights, we may not be able to discover or determine the extent of any such unauthorized use and we may not be able to prevent third parties from misappropriating or infringing upon our proprietary rights. In addition, if the Company’s employees, scientific consultants or partners develop inventions or processes that may be applicable to the Company’s existing products or products under development, such inventions and processes will not necessarily become the Company’s property and may remain the property of those persons or their employers.

If we are unable to adequately protect our technology, trade secrets or proprietary know-how, or enforce our intellectual property rights, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

Our competitors or other third parties may allege that we are infringing their intellectual property, forcing us to expend substantial resources in litigation, the outcome of which is uncertain. Any unfavorable outcome of such litigation, including losses related to “at-risk” product launches, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Companies that produce branded pharmaceutical products routinely bring litigation against ANDA or similar applicants that seek regulatory approval to manufacture and market generic forms of their branded products, alleging patent infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights. Patent holders may also bring patent infringement suits against companies that are currently marketing and selling approved generic products. Litigation often involves significant expense. Additionally, if the patents of others are held valid, enforceable and infringed by our current products or future product candidates, we would, unless we could obtain a license from the patent holder, need to delay selling our corresponding generic product and, if we are already selling our product, cease selling and potentially destroy existing product stock. Additionally, we could be required to pay monetary damages or royalties to license proprietary rights from third parties and we may not be able to obtain such licenses on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

There may be situations in which we may make business and legal judgments to market and sell products that are subject to claims of alleged patent infringement prior to final resolution of those claims by the courts based upon our belief that such patents are invalid, unenforceable or are not infringed by our marketing and sale of such products. This is commonly referred to in the pharmaceutical industry as an “at-risk” launch. The risk involved in an at-risk launch can be substantial because, if a patent holder ultimately prevails against us, the remedies available to such holder may include, among other things, damages calculated based on the profits lost by the patent holder, which can be significantly higher than the profits we make from selling the generic version of the product. Moreover, if a court determines that such infringement is willful, the damages could be subject to trebling. We could face substantial damages from adverse court decisions in such matters. We could also be at risk for the value of such inventory that we are unable to market or sell.

Agreements between branded pharmaceutical companies and generic pharmaceutical companies are facing increased government scrutiny and private litigation in the U.S. and abroad.

We are involved in numerous patent litigations in which generic companies challenge the validity or enforceability of our products’ listed patents and/or the applicability of these patents to the generic applicant’s products. Likewise, we are also involved in patent litigations in which we challenge the validity or enforceability of innovator companies’ listed patents and/or their applicability to our generic products. Therefore, settling patent litigations has been and is likely to continue to be part of our business. Parties to such settlement agreements in the U.S., including us, are required by law to file them with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) for review. The FTC has publicly stated that, in its view, such settlement agreements may violate antitrust laws. In some instances, the FTC has brought actions against brand and generic companies that have entered into such agreements. Accordingly, we may receive formal or informal requests from the FTC for information about any such settlement agreement we enter into, and there is a risk that the FTC may commence an action against us alleging violation of the antitrust laws.

In addition, some members of the U.S. Congress have proposed legislation that would limit the types of settlement agreements generic manufacturers can enter into with brand companies. In 2013, the Supreme Court, in FTC v. Actavis , determined that reverse payment patent settlements between generic and brand companies should be evaluated under the rule of reason, but provided limited guidance beyond the selection of this standard. Because the Supreme Court did not articulate the full range of criteria upon which a determination of legality of such settlements would be based, or provide guidance on the precise circumstances under which such settlements would always qualify as legal, there may be extensive litigation over what constitutes a reasonable and lawful patent settlement between a brand and generic company. For example, certain of our subsidiaries are subject to multiple lawsuits purporting to be or certified as class actions brought by direct and indirect payers alleging that a settlement agreement with Impax Laboratories, LLC (Impax) regarding the OPANA ^® ER patent litigation was unlawful in violation of federal antitrust laws and various state laws.

We have significant goodwill and other intangible assets. Consequently, potential impairment of goodwill and other intangibles may significantly impact our profitability.

Goodwill and other intangibles represent a significant portion of our assets. As of December 31, 2018 and 2017 , goodwill and other intangibles comprised approximately 71% and 75% , respectively, of our total assets. Goodwill and other indefinite-lived intangible assets are subject to impairment tests at least annually. Additionally, impairment tests must be performed for certain assets whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate such assets’ carrying amounts may not be recoverable.

For the years ended December 31, 2018 , 2017 and 2016 , we recorded asset impairment charges of $0.9 billion , $1.2 billion and $3.8 billion , respectively, which related primarily to goodwill and other intangible assets. Refer to Note 10. Goodwill and Other Intangibles in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report for examples and a discussion of material impairment tests and impairment charges during the years ended years ended December 31, 2018 , 2017 and 2016 . The procedures and assumptions used in our goodwill and intangible assets impairment testing are discussed in Part II, Item 7 of this report "Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" under the caption “ CRITICAL ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES ” and in Note 10. Goodwill and Other Intangibles in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report .

Events giving rise to asset impairments are an inherent risk in the pharmaceutical industry and often cannot be predicted. As a result of the significance of goodwill and other intangible assets, our results of operations and financial position in a future period could be negatively impacted should additional impairments of our goodwill or other intangible assets occur.

We are subject to various regulations pertaining to the marketing of our products and services .

We are subject to various federal and state laws pertaining to healthcare fraud and abuse involving the marketing and pricing of our products and services, including prohibitions on the offer of payment or acceptance of kickbacks or other remuneration for the purchase of our products and services, including inducements to potential patients to request our products and services and inducements to healthcare professionals to prescribe and use our products. Additionally, product promotion, educational activities, support of continuing medical education programs and other interactions with healthcare professionals must be conducted in a manner consistent with FDA regulations and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Anti-Kickback Statute, with certain exceptions or exemptions published by the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS-OIG), prohibits persons or entities from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing, recommending or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under federal healthcare programs, such as the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute also carry potential federal False Claims Act liability. Additionally, many states have adopted laws similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute, without identical exceptions or exemptions. Some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of patients for healthcare items or services reimbursed by any third-party payer, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Any such regulations or requirements may be difficult and expensive for us to comply with, may delay our introduction of new products, may adversely affect our total revenues and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

In February 2019, HHS-OIG issued a Proposed Rule: Removal of Safe Harbor Protection for Rebates Involving Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Creation of New Safe Harbor Protection for Certain Point-of-Sale Reductions in Price on Prescription Pharmaceuticals and Certain Pharmacy Benefit Manager Service Fees to: (i) modify the definition of a discount eligible for safe harbor protection to exclude certain reductions in price or other remuneration, including payments that may be labeled as “rebates,” from prescription pharmaceutical product manufacturers to Medicare Part D plan sponsors, Medicaid managed care organizations (MCOs) or pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) under contract with either; (ii) adopt a new safe harbor that would protect certain point-of-sale price reductions offered by manufacturers on certain prescription pharmaceutical products payable under Medicare Part D or by Medicaid MCOs and (iii) adopt a new safe harbor that would protect fixed fees that manufacturers pay to PBMs for services rendered to manufacturers that meet specified criteria. It is unclear at this time whether this Proposed Rule will be adopted or, if adopted, what effect, if any, it would have on the cost and ability to comply with the federal Anti-Kickback Statute or on our business, including our ongoing relationships with contracting partners in the drug distribution supply chain.

Sanctions for violating these laws include criminal penalties and civil sanctions and possible exclusion from federally funded healthcare programs such as Medicare and Medicaid as well as potential liability under the False Claims Act and applicable state false claims acts. There can be no assurance that our practices will not be challenged under these laws in the future, that changes in these laws or interpretation of these laws would not give rise to new challenges of our practices or that any such challenge would not have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations. Law enforcement agencies sometimes initiate investigations into sales, marketing and/or pricing practices based on preliminary information or evidence, and such investigations can be and often are closed without any enforcement action. Nevertheless, these types of investigations and any related litigation can result in: (i) large expenditures of cash for legal fees, payment of penalties and compliance activities; (ii) limitations on operations; (iii) diversion of management resources; (iv) injury to our reputation and (v) decreased demand for our products.

In addition, our company is subject to statutory and regulatory restrictions on the promotion of uses of prescription drugs or devices that are not cleared or approved by the FDA, which are commonly referred to in the pharmaceutical industry as “off-label” uses. Although the FDA does not regulate a physician’s choice of medications, treatments or product uses, the FFDCA and FDA regulations and guidance restrict the ability of healthcare companies to communicate with patients, physicians and other third-parties about off-label uses. Prohibitions on the promotion of off-label uses and against promotional practices deemed false or misleading are actively enforced by various parties at both the federal and state level. A company that is found to have improperly promoted its products under these laws may be subject to significant liability, including significant administrative, civil and criminal sanctions including, but not limited to, significant civil damages, criminal fines and exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. Applicable laws governing product promotion also provide for administrative, civil and criminal liability for individuals, including, in some circumstances, potential strict vicarious liability. Conduct giving rise to such liability could also form the basis for private civil litigation by third-party payers or other persons allegedly harmed by such conduct.

We have established and implemented a corporate compliance program designed to prevent, detect and correct violations of state and federal healthcare laws, including laws related to advertising and promotion of our products. Nonetheless, enforcement agencies or private plaintiffs may take the position that we are not in compliance with such requirements and, if such non-compliance is proven, the Company and, in some cases, individual employees, may be subject to significant liability, including the aforementioned administrative, civil and criminal sanctions.

Furthermore, in February 2014, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc. (EPI) entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement (CIA) with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to resolve allegations regarding the promotion of LIDODERM ^® . In March 2013, our subsidiary, Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., entered into a CIA and a Plea Agreement with the DOJ to resolve allegations regarding the promotion of MEGACE ^® ES. Those agreements place certain obligations on us related to the marketing of our pharmaceutical products and our healthcare regulatory compliance program, including reporting requirements to the U.S. government, detailed requirements for our compliance program, code of conduct and policies and procedures and the requirement to engage an Independent Review Organization. We have implemented procedures and practices to comply with the CIA, including the engagement of an Independent Review Organization. In the event we breach the Plea Agreement and/or the CIAs, there is a risk the government would seek remedies provided for in those agreements, including instituting criminal prosecution against us, seeking to impose stipulated penalties or seeking to exclude us from participation in federal healthcare programs.

The pharmaceutical industry is heavily regulated, which creates uncertainty about our ability to bring new products to market and imposes substantial compliance costs on our business .

Governmental authorities such as the FDA impose substantial requirements on the development, manufacture, holding, labeling, marketing, advertising, promotion, distribution and sale of therapeutic pharmaceutical products through lengthy and detailed laboratory and clinical testing and other costly and time-consuming procedures. In addition, before obtaining regulatory approvals for certain generic products, we must conduct limited bioequivalence studies and other research to show comparability to the branded products. A failure to obtain satisfactory results in required pre-marketing trials may prevent us from obtaining required regulatory approvals. The FDA may also require companies to conduct post-approval studies and post-approval surveillance regarding their drug products and to report adverse events.

Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the sale of any new product candidate, we must demonstrate through preclinical studies and clinical trials that such product candidate is safe and effective for each intended use. Preclinical and clinical studies may fail to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of a product candidate. Likewise, we may not be able to demonstrate through clinical trials that a product candidate’s therapeutic benefits outweigh its risks. Even promising results from preclinical and early clinical studies do not always accurately predict results in later, large scale trials. A failure to demonstrate safety and efficacy would result in our failure to obtain regulatory approvals. Clinical trials can be delayed for reasons outside of our control, which can lead to increased development costs and delays in regulatory approval. For example, there is substantial competition to enroll patients in clinical trials, and such competition has delayed clinical development of our products in the past. For example, patients may not enroll in clinical trials at the rate expected or patients may drop out after enrolling in the trials or during the trials. In addition, we rely on collaboration partners that may control or make changes in trial protocol and design enhancements, or encounter clinical trial compliance-related issues, which may also delay clinical trials. Product supplies may be delayed or be insufficient to treat the patients participating in the clinical trials, or manufacturers or suppliers may not meet the requirements of the FDA or foreign regulatory authorities, such as those relating to cGMP. We also may experience delays in obtaining, or we may not obtain, required initial and continuing approval of our clinical trials from institutional review boards. We may experience delays or undesired results in these or any other of our clinical trials.

The FDA and/or foreign regulatory agencies may not approve, clear for marketing or certify any products developed by us. Any approval by regulatory agencies may subject the marketing of our products to certain limits on indicated use. The FDA or foreign regulatory authorities may not agree with our assessment of the clinical data or they may interpret it differently. Such regulatory authorities may require additional or expanded clinical trials. Any limitation on use imposed by the FDA or delay in or failure to obtain FDA approvals or clearances of products developed by us would adversely affect the marketing of these products and our ability to generate product revenue, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, specifically with respect to pharmaceutical products, the submission of an NDA, ANDA, BLA or supplemental Biologics License Application (sBLA) to the FDA with supporting clinical safety and efficacy data, for example, does not guarantee that the FDA will grant approval to market the product. Meeting the FDA’s regulatory requirements to obtain approval to market a drug product, which varies substantially based on the type, complexity and novelty of the pharmaceutical product, typically takes years, if approved at all, and is subject to uncertainty. In addition, even if we were to obtain approval, regulatory authorities may approve any of our product candidates for fewer or more limited indications than we may request, may grant approval contingent on conditions such as the performance and results of costly post-marketing clinical trials or REMS or may approve a product candidate with a label that does not include the labeling claims necessary or desirable for the successful commercialization of that product candidate, or reimbursement by government payers or other payers may not be approved at the price we intend to charge for our products. Any of the foregoing scenarios could materially harm the commercial prospects for our product candidates.

Additional delays may result if an FDA Advisory Committee or other regulatory authority recommends non-approval or restrictions on approval. Although the FDA is not required to follow the recommendations of its Advisory Committees, it usually does. A negative Advisory Committee meeting could signal a lower likelihood of approval, although the FDA may still end up approving our application. Regardless of an Advisory Committee meeting outcome or the FDA’s final approval decision, public presentation of our data may shed positive or negative light on our application.

With respect to our Supplemental New Drug Application for OPANA ^® ER, the FDA scheduled a Joint Meeting of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and the Anesthetic and Analgesic Drug Products Advisory Committee in March 2017 to discuss pre- and post-marketing data about the abuse of OPANA ^® ER and the overall risk-benefit of this product. The Advisory Committees were also scheduled to discuss abuse of generic oxymorphone ER and oxymorphone immediate-release products. In March 2017, the Advisory Committees voted 18 to eight, with one abstention, that the benefits of reformulated OPANA ^® ER no longer outweigh its risks. While several of the Advisory Committee members acknowledged the role of OPANA ^® ER in clinical practice, others believed its benefits were overshadowed by the continuing public health concerns around the product's misuse, abuse and diversion. In June 2017, the FDA requested that we voluntarily withdraw OPANA ^® ER from the market and, in July 2017, after careful consideration and consultation with the FDA, we decided to voluntarily remove OPANA ^® ER from the market to the Company’s financial detriment. During the second quarter of 2017, we began to work with the FDA to coordinate an orderly withdrawal of the product from the market. By September 1, 2017, we ceased shipments of OPANA ^® ER to customers and we expect the NDA will be withdrawn. These actions had an adverse effect on our revenues and, as a result of these actions, we have incurred and expect to incur certain charges. Actions similar to these, such as recalls or withdrawals, could divert management time and attention, reduce market acceptance of all of our products, harm our reputation, reduce our revenues, lead to additional charges or expenses or result in product liability claims, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

Some drugs are available in the U.S. that are not the subject of an FDA-approved NDA. In 2011, the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Office of Compliance modified its enforcement policy with regard to the marketing of such “unapproved” marketed drugs. Under CDER’s revised guidance, the FDA encourages manufacturers to obtain NDA approvals for such drugs by requiring unapproved versions to be removed from the market after an approved version has been introduced, subject to a grace period at the FDA’s discretion. This grace period is intended to allow an orderly transition of supply to the market and to mitigate any potential related drug shortage. Depending on the length of the grace period and the time it takes for subsequent applications to be approved, this may result in a period of de facto market exclusivity to the first manufacturer that has obtained an approved NDA for the previously unapproved marketed drug. We may seek FDA approval for certain unapproved marketed drug products through the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway. Even if we receive approval for an NDA under section 505(b)(2) of the FFDCA, the FDA may not take timely enforcement action against companies marketing unapproved versions of the drug; therefore, we cannot be sure that that we will receive the benefit of any de facto exclusive marketing period or that we will fully recoup the expenses incurred to obtain an approval. In addition, certain competitors and others have objected to the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2). If the FDA’s interpretation of Section 505(b)(2) is successfully challenged, this could delay or even prevent the FDA from approving any NDA that we submit under Section 505(b)(2).

Moreover, even if our product candidates are approved under Section 505(b)(2), the approval may be subject to limitations on the indicated uses for which the products may be marketed or to other conditions of approval, or may contain requirements for costly post-marketing testing and surveillance to monitor the safety or efficacy of the products.

The ANDA approval process for a new product varies in time, generally requiring a minimum of 10 months following submission of the ANDA to FDA, but could also take several years from the date of application. The timing for the ANDA approval process for generic products is difficult to estimate and can vary significantly. ANDA approvals, if granted, may not include all uses (known as indications) for which a company may seek to market a product.

Further, once a product is approved or cleared for marketing, failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in, among other things, suspensions or withdrawals of approvals or clearances; seizures or recalls of products; injunctions against the manufacture, holding, distribution, marketing and sale of a product; and civil and criminal sanctions. Furthermore, changes in existing regulations or the adoption of new regulations could prevent us from obtaining, or affect the timing of, future regulatory approvals or clearances. Meeting regulatory requirements and evolving government standards may delay marketing of our new products for a considerable period of time, impose costly procedures upon our activities and result in a competitive advantage to larger companies that compete against us.

Based on scientific developments, post-market experience or other legislative or regulatory changes, the current FDA standards of review for approving new pharmaceutical products, or new indications or uses for approved or cleared products, are sometimes more stringent than those that were applied in the past.

Some new or evolving FDA review standards or conditions for approval or clearance were not applied to many established products currently on the market, including certain opioid products. As a result, the FDA does not have safety databases on these products that are as extensive as some products developed more recently. Accordingly, we believe the FDA has expressed an intention to develop such databases for certain of these products, including many opioids. In particular, the FDA has expressed interest in specific chemical structures that may be present as impurities in a number of opioid narcotic active pharmaceutical ingredients, such as oxycodone, which, based on certain structural characteristics and laboratory tests, may indicate the potential for having mutagenic effects. The FDA has required, and may continue to require, more stringent controls of the levels of these impurities in drug products for approval.

Also, the FDA may require labeling revisions, formulation or manufacturing changes and/or product modifications for new or existing products containing such impurities. The FDA’s more stringent requirements, together with any additional testing or remedial measures that may be necessary, could result in increased costs for, or delays in, obtaining approval for certain of our products. Although we do not believe that the FDA would seek to remove a currently marketed product from the market unless such mutagenic effects are believed to indicate a significant risk to patient health, we cannot make any such assurance.

In May of 2016, an FDA advisory panel recommended mandatory training of all physicians who prescribe opioids on the risks of prescription opioids. In 2016, the CDC also issued a guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain that provides recommendations for primary care clinicians who are prescribing opioids for chronic pain outside of active cancer treatment, palliative care and end-of-life care. In addition, state health departments and boards of pharmacy have authority to regulate distribution and may modify their regulations with respect to prescription narcotics in an attempt to curb abuse. In either case, these or any new regulations or requirements may be difficult and expensive for us to comply with, may delay our introduction of new products, may adversely affect our total revenues and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The FDA has the authority to require companies to undertake additional post-approval studies to assess known or signaled safety risks, to make any labeling changes to address those risks and to formulate approved REMS to confirm a drug’s benefits outweigh its risks. For example, in 2015, the FDA sent letters to a number of manufactures, including Endo, requiring that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial be conducted to evaluate the effect of testosterone replacement therapy on the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in men. The letter received by Endo required that we include new safety information in the labeling and Medication Guide for certain prescription medications containing testosterone, such as TESTIM ^® .

The FDA’s exercise of its authority under the FFDCA could result in delays or increased costs during product development, clinical trials and regulatory review, increased costs to comply with additional post-approval regulatory requirements and potential restrictions on sales of approved products. Foreign regulatory agencies often have similar authority and may impose comparable requirements and costs. Post-marketing studies and other emerging data about marketed products, such as adverse event reports, may also adversely affect sales of our products. Furthermore, the discovery of significant safety or efficacy concerns or problems with a product in the same therapeutic class as one of our products that implicate or appear to implicate the entire class of products could have an adverse effect on sales of our product or, in some cases, result in product withdrawals. The FDA has continuing authority over the approval of an NDA or ANDA and may withdraw approval if, among other reasons, post-marketing clinical or other experience, tests or data show that a drug is unsafe for use under the conditions upon which it was approved, or if FDA determines that there is a lack of substantial evidence of the drug’s efficacy under the conditions described in its labeling. Furthermore, new data and information, including information about product misuse or abuse at the user level, may lead government agencies, professional societies, practice management groups or patient or trade organizations to recommend or publish guidance or guidelines related to the use of our products, which may lead to reduced sales of our products.

The FDA and the DEA have important and complementary responsibilities with respect to our business. The FDA administers an application and post-approval monitoring process to confirm that products that are available in the market are safe, effective and consistently of uniform, high quality. The DEA administers registration, drug allotment and accountability systems to satisfy against loss and diversion of controlled substances. Both agencies have trained investigators that routinely, or for cause, conduct inspections, and both have authority to seek to enforce their statutory authority and regulations through administrative remedies as well as civil and criminal enforcement actions.

The FDA regulates and monitors the quality of drug clinical trials to provide human subject protection and to support marketing applications. The FDA may place a hold on a clinical trial and may cause a suspension or withdrawal of product approvals if regulatory standards are not maintained. The FDA also regulates the facilities, processes and procedures used to manufacture and market pharmaceutical products in the U.S. Manufacturing facilities must be registered with the FDA and all products made in such facilities must be manufactured in accordance with the latest cGMP regulations, which are enforced by the FDA. Compliance with clinical trial requirements and cGMP regulations requires significant expenditures and the dedication of substantial resources. In the event an approved manufacturing facility for a particular drug is required by the FDA to curtail or cease operations, or otherwise becomes inoperable, or a third party contract manufacturing facility faces manufacturing problems, obtaining the required FDA authorization to manufacture at the same or a different manufacturing site could result in production delays, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The FDA is authorized to perform inspections of U.S. and foreign facilities under the FFDCA. At the end of such an inspection, the FDA could issue a Form 483 Notice of Inspectional Observations, which could cause us to modify certain activities identified during the inspection. Following such inspections, the FDA may issue an untitled letter as an initial correspondence that cites violations that do not meet the threshold of regulatory significance for a Warning Letter. FDA guidelines also provide for the issuance of Warning Letters for violations of “regulatory significance” for which the failure to adequately and promptly achieve correction may be expected to result in an enforcement action. The FDA also may issue Warning Letters and untitled letters in connection with events or circumstances unrelated to an FDA inspection.

Similar to other healthcare companies, our facilities in multiple countries across the full range of our business units are subject to routine and new-product related inspections by regulatory authorities including the FDA, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the Health Products Regulatory Authority and Health Canada. In the past, some of these inspections have resulted in inspection observations (including FDA Form 483 observations). We have responded to all inspection observations within the required timeframe and have implemented, or are continuing to implement, the corrective action plans as agreed with the relevant regulatory agencies.

Several of our core products contain controlled substances. The stringent DEA regulations on our use of controlled substances include restrictions on their use in research, manufacture, distribution and storage. A breach of these regulations could result in imposition of civil penalties, refusal to renew or action to revoke necessary registrations, or other restrictions on operations involving controlled substances. In addition, failure to comply with applicable legal requirements subjects the manufacturing facilities of our subsidiaries and manufacturing partners to possible legal or regulatory action, including shutdown. Any such shutdown may adversely affect their ability to supply us with product and thus, our ability to market affected products. This could have a negative impact on our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and competitive position. See also the risk described under the caption “ The DEA limits the availability of the active ingredients used in many of our products as well as the production of these products, and, as a result, our procurement and production quotas may not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or complete clinical trials .”

In addition, we are subject to the Federal Drug Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) enacted by the U.S. government, which requires development of an electronic pedigree to track and trace each prescription drug at the salable unit level through the distribution system, which will be effective incrementally over a 10-year period. Compliance with DSCSA and future U.S. federal or state electronic pedigree requirements may increase our operational expenses and impose significant administrative burdens.

We cannot determine what effect changes in regulations or legal interpretations or requirements by the FDA, the courts or others, when and if promulgated or issued, or advisory committee meetings may have on our business in the future. Changes could, among other things, require different labeling, monitoring of patients, interaction with physicians, education programs for patients or physicians, curtailment of necessary supplies or limitations on product distribution. Any such changes could have an adverse effect on our business. The evolving and complex nature of regulatory science and regulatory requirements, the broad authority and discretion of the FDA and the generally high level of regulatory oversight results in a continuing possibility that, from time to time, we will be adversely affected by regulatory actions despite our ongoing efforts and commitment to achieve and maintain full compliance with all regulatory requirements.

The success of our acquisition and licensing strategy is subject to uncertainty and any completed acquisitions or licenses may reduce our earnings, be difficult to integrate, not perform as expected or require us to obtain additional financing.

We regularly evaluate selective acquisitions and look to continue to enhance our product line by acquiring rights to additional products and compounds. Such acquisitions may be carried out through corporate acquisitions, asset acquisitions, licensing and joint venture arrangements or by acquiring other companies. However, we may not be able to complete acquisitions that meet our target criteria on satisfactory terms, if at all. In particular, we may not be able to identify suitable acquisition candidates. In addition, any acquisition of assets and rights to products and compounds may fail to accomplish our strategic objective and may not perform as expected. Further, if we are unable to maintain, on commercially reasonable terms, product, compound or other licenses that we have acquired, our ability to develop or commercialize our products may be inhibited. In order to continue to develop and broaden our product range, we must compete to acquire assets. Our competitors may have greater resources than us and therefore be better able to complete acquisitions, which could cause us to be unable to consummate acquisitions or cause the ultimate price we pay for acquisitions to increase. If we fail to achieve our acquisition goals, our growth may be limited.

In addition to the risks related to acquisition of assets and products, acquisitions of companies may expose us to additional risks, which may be beyond our control and may have a material adverse effect on our profitability and cash flows. The combination of two independent businesses is a complex, costly and time-consuming process. As a result, we may be required to devote significant management attention and resources to the integration of an acquired business into our practices and operations. Any integration process may be disruptive and, if implemented ineffectively, may restrict the realization of the full expected benefits.

In addition, any acquisitions we make may result in material unanticipated problems, expenses, liabilities, competitive responses and loss or disruption of relationships with customers, suppliers, partners, regulators and others with whom we have business or other dealings. The difficulties of combining operations of companies include, among others:

The benefits of a merger are also subject to a variety of other factors, many of which are beyond our ability to control, such as changes in the rate of economic growth in jurisdictions in which the combined company will do business, the financial performance of the combined business in various jurisdictions, currency exchange rate fluctuations and significant changes in trade, monetary or fiscal policies, including changes in interest rates and tax law of the jurisdictions in which the combined company will do business. The impact of these factors, individually and in the aggregate, is difficult to predict, in part because the occurrence of the events or circumstances described in such factors may be interrelated, and the impact to the combined company of the occurrence of any one of these events or circumstances could be compounded or, alternatively, reduced, offset or more than offset by the occurrence of one or more of the other events or circumstances described in such factors.

In addition, based on current acquisition prices in the pharmaceutical industry, acquisitions could decrease our net income per share and add significant intangible assets and related amortization or impairment charges. Our acquisition strategy may require us to obtain additional debt or equity financing, resulting in additional debt obligations, increased interest expense or dilution of equity ownership. We may not be able to finance acquisitions on terms satisfactory to us, or at all.

We may decide to sell assets, which could adversely affect our prospects and opportunities for growth.

We may from time to time consider selling certain assets if we determine that such assets are not critical to our strategy or we believe the opportunity to monetize the asset is attractive or for various other reasons, including for the reduction of indebtedness. For example, we divested both Litha and Somar in 2017 and various ANDAs throughout 2018. We will continue to explore the sale of certain non-core assets. Although our expectation is to engage in asset sales only if they advance or otherwise support our overall strategy, any such sale could reduce the size or scope of our business, our market share in particular markets or our opportunities with respect to certain markets, products or therapeutic categories. As a result, any such sale could have an adverse effect on our business, prospects and opportunities for growth, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Our growth and development will depend on developing, commercializing and marketing new products, including both our own products and those developed with our collaboration partners. If we do not do so successfully, our growth and development will be impaired.

Our future revenues and profitability will depend, to a significant extent, upon our ability to successfully commercialize new branded and generic pharmaceutical products protected by patent or statutory authority in a timely manner. As a result, we must continually develop, test and manufacture new products, which must meet regulatory standards to receive requisite marketing authorizations. The process of developing and obtaining regulatory approvals for new products is time-consuming, costly and inherently unpredictable. Products we are currently developing may not receive the regulatory approvals or clearances necessary for us to market them and, if approved, we may be unable to successfully commercialize them on a timely basis or at all.

The successful commercialization of a product is subject to a number of factors, including:

In addition, many risks associated with developing, commercializing and marketing new products are beyond our control. For example, some of our collaboration partners may decide to make substantial changes to a product’s formulation or design, may experience financial difficulties or may have limited financial resources. Any of the foregoing may delay the development, commercialization and/or marketing of new products. In addition, if a co-developer on a new product terminates our collaboration agreement or does not perform under the agreement, we may experience delays and additional costs in developing and marketing that product.

We conduct research and development to enable us to manufacture and market pharmaceutical products in accordance with specific government regulations. Much of our drug development effort is focused on technically difficult-to-formulate products and/or products that require advanced manufacturing technology. Typically, expenses related to research, development and regulatory approval of compounds for our branded pharmaceutical products are significantly greater than those expenses associated with generic products. Should we expand our research and development efforts, our research expenses will likely increase. Because of the inherent risk associated with research and development efforts in the healthcare industry, particularly with respect to new drugs, our research and development expenditures may not result in the successful regulatory approval and introduction of new pharmaceutical products and failure in the development of any new product can occur at any point in the process, including late in the process after substantial investment. Also, after we submit a regulatory application, the relevant governmental health authority may require that we conduct additional studies, including, for example, studies to assess the product’s interaction with alcohol. As a result, we may be unable to reasonably predict the total research and development costs to develop a particular product and there is a significant risk that the funds we invest in research and development will not generate financial returns. In addition, our operating results and financial condition may fluctuate as the amount we spend to research and develop, commercialize, acquire or license new products, technologies and businesses changes.

The availability of third party reimbursement for our products is uncertain, and thus we may find it difficult to maintain current price levels. Additionally, the market may not accept those products for which third party reimbursement is not adequately provided .

Our ability to commercialize our products depends, in part, on the extent to which reimbursement for the costs of these products is available from government healthcare programs, such as Medicaid and Medicare, private health insurers and others. We cannot be certain that, over time, third party reimbursements for our products will be adequate for us to maintain price levels sufficient for realization of an appropriate return on our investment. Government payers, private insurers and other third party payers are increasingly attempting to contain healthcare costs by: (i) limiting both coverage and the level of reimbursement (including adjusting co-pays) for drugs, (ii) refusing, in some cases, to provide any coverage for off-label uses for drugs and (iii) requiring or encouraging, through more favorable reimbursement levels or otherwise, the substitution of generic alternatives to branded drugs. The Trump Administration also has been targeting drug prices in ways that could affect reimbursement for our products. For example, beginning in January 2019, Medicare Advantage Plans will be permitted to apply “step therapy” to products covered under Part B, which could impact our ability to negotiate for favorable product access in this sector. Additionally, in October 2018, President Trump announced a new initiative to contain drug costs by establishing an “international pricing index” that would be used as a benchmark in deciding how much to pay for Medicare Part B drugs. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Medicare Program that would reduce Part B drug spending and reimbursement in part based on the prices that manufacturers charge to customers in foreign countries (also referred to as reference pricing). This proposal targets physician-administered drugs, and it is therefore possible that any final rule could adversely affect reimbursement for certain products that we sell, and we cannot anticipate the adverse impact of this or similar developments on our business. Additionally, the new Congress is considering multiple proposals impacting healthcare. There can be no assurance as to which proposals, if any, will be adopted, the final terms of any such proposals and the ultimate impact that such proposals would have on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

New tariffs and evolving trade policy between the United States and other countries, including China, may have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

We conduct business globally and our operations, including third party suppliers, span numerous countries outside the U.S. There is currently significant uncertainty about the future relationship between the U.S. and various other countries, including China, with respect to trade policies, treaties, government regulations and tariffs. The Trump Administration has called for substantial changes to U.S. foreign trade policy, including the possibility of imposing greater restrictions on international trade and significant increases in tariffs on goods imported into the U.S. In September 2018, the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) enacted a tariff on the import of certain Chinese products with a combined import value of approximately $200 billion , including non-U.S. sourced APIs and starting materials used in our products. The tariff became effective on September 24, 2018, with an initial rate of 10% , and the Trump Administration has expressed a willingness to potentially increase tariffs to 25% . These tariffs could potentially disrupt our existing supply chains and impose additional costs on our business, including costs with respect to raw materials upon which our business depends. Furthermore, if tariffs, trade restrictions or trade barriers are placed on products such as ours by foreign governments, especially China, it could cause us to raise prices for our products, which may result in the loss of customers and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be harmed. If we are unable to pass along increased costs to our customers, our margins could be adversely affected. Additionally, it is possible further tariffs may be imposed that could affect imports of APIs and starting materials used in our products, or our business may be adversely impacted by retaliatory trade measures taken by China or other countries, including restricted access to APIs or starting materials used in our products, causing us to raise prices or make changes to our products, which could materially harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Further, the continued threats of tariffs, trade restrictions and trade barriers could have a generally disruptive impact on the global economy and, therefore, negatively impact our sales. Given the unpredictable regulatory environment in China and the U.S. and uncertainty regarding how the U.S. or foreign governments will act with respect to tariffs, international trade agreements and policies, further governmental action related to tariffs, additional taxes, regulatory changes or other retaliatory trade measures in the future could occur and could directly and adversely impact our business and results of operations.

We may experience pricing pressure on our products due to social or political pressure to lower the cost of drugs, which would reduce our revenue and future profitability.

We may experience downward pricing pressure on our products due to social or political pressure to lower the cost of drugs, which would reduce our revenue and future profitability. Price increases have resulted in increased public and governmental scrutiny of the cost of drugs. For example, U.S. federal prosecutors have issued subpoenas to pharmaceutical companies seeking information about pricing practices in connection with an investigation into pricing practices conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. Several state attorneys general also have commenced drug pricing investigations and filed lawsuits against pharmaceutical companies, including Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., and the U.S. Senate has publicly investigated a number of pharmaceutical companies relating to price increases and pricing practices. Our revenue and future profitability could be negatively affected if these or other inquiries were to result in legislative or regulatory proposals limiting our ability to increase the prices of our products.

In addition, the Trump Administration and a number of federal legislators continue to scrutinize drug prices and are seeking ways to lower prices. For example, the Trump Administration’s “Blueprint” on drug prices describes a number of mechanisms for lowering manufacturer list prices and reducing patient out-of-pocket costs. Although the Blueprint contains a number of policy objectives, we cannot know the form that any new requirements will take or the effect that they may have on our business. In addition, Congress has held a number of hearings related to drug prices and a bipartisan group of U.S. Senators introduced legislation that would require pharmaceutical manufacturers to justify certain price increases. A large number of individual states also have introduced legislation aimed at drug pricing regulation, transparency or both. For example, California, Oregon, Vermont and Nevada have enacted such laws. Our revenue and future profitability could be negatively affected by the passage of these laws or similar federal or state legislation. Pressure from social activist groups and future government regulations may also put downward pressure on the price of drugs in the future.

Our business is highly dependent upon market perceptions of us, our brands, and the safety and quality of our products, and may be adversely impacted by negative publicity or findings.

Market perceptions of us are very important to our business, especially market perceptions of our company and brands and the safety and quality of our products. If we, our partners and suppliers, or our brands suffer from negative publicity, or if any of our products or similar products which other companies distribute are subject to market withdrawal or recall or are proven to be, or are claimed to be, ineffective or harmful to consumers, our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

For example, the pharmaceutical drug supply has been increasingly challenged by the vulnerability of distribution channels to illegal counterfeiting and the presence of counterfeit products in a growing number of markets and over the internet. Third parties may illegally distribute and sell counterfeit versions of our products that do not meet the rigorous manufacturing and testing standards that our products undergo. Counterfeit products are frequently unsafe or ineffective, and can be potentially life-threatening. Counterfeit medicines may contain harmful substances, the wrong dose of API or no API at all. However, to distributors and users, counterfeit products may be visually indistinguishable from the authentic version.

In addition, negative posts or comments about us on any social networking website could seriously damage our reputation. The inappropriate use of certain social media vehicles could cause brand damage or information leakage or could lead to legal implications from the improper collection and/or dissemination of personally identifiable information or the improper dissemination of material non-public information.

Furthermore, unfavorable media coverage of opioid pharmaceuticals could negatively affect our business, financial condition and results of operations. In recent years, opioid drug abuse has received a high degree of media coverage. Unfavorable publicity regarding, for example, the use or misuse of oxycodone or other opioid drugs, the limitations of abuse-deterrent forms, public inquiries and investigations into prescription drug abuse, litigation or regulatory activity could adversely affect our reputation. Such negative publicity could have an adverse effect on the potential size of the market for our drug candidates and decrease revenues and royalties, which would adversely affect our business and financial status. Additionally, such increased scrutiny of opioids generally, whether focused on our products or otherwise, could negatively impact our relationship with healthcare providers and other members of the healthcare community.

We are dependent on market perceptions, and negative publicity associated with product quality, patient illness or other adverse effects resulting from, or perceived to be resulting from, our products, or our partners’ and suppliers’ manufacturing facilities, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Our business and financial condition may be adversely affected by legislation .

In April 2018, New York enacted a statute called the Opioid Stewardship Act (the Stewardship Act), which, among other things, provided for certain sellers and distributors of certain opioids in the state of New York (the Contributing Parties) to make payments to a newly created Opioid Stewardship Fund (the Fund). By its terms, the Stewardship Act required Contributing Parties to pay a total of up to $100 million annually into the Fund, with each Contributing Party’s share based on the total amount of morphine milligram equivalents of certain opioids sold or distributed by the Contributing Party in the state of New York during the preceding calendar year, subject to potential adjustments by the New York State Department of Health. Failure of a Contributing Party to make required reports or pay its ratable share, or a Contributing Party passing on the cost of its ratable share to a purchaser, could subject the Contributing Party to penalties. In December 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held the Stewardship Act unconstitutional. This ruling is on appeal. If the decision is reversed, we may be deemed to be a Contributing Party under the Stewardship Act and even if we are not considered to be a Contributing Party, or such a determination is never made, other entities may attempt to seek reimbursement from Endo for payments made related to products manufactured by Endo and distributed in New York. Furthermore, the application of the Stewardship Act may require additional regulatory guidance, which could be substantially delayed, increasing the uncertainty as to the ultimate effect of the Stewardship Act on us. If we are ultimately deemed to be a Contributing Party under the Stewardship Act, or similar legislation that could be enacted by New York or other jurisdictions, compliance with those laws could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Additionally, in October 2018, the U.S. Congress enacted the Substance Use-Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities Act (H.R. 6). Intended to achieve sweeping reform to combat the opioid epidemic, H.R. 6, among other provisions, amends related laws administered by the FDA, DEA and CMS. Among other things, the law: amends requirements related to the FDA’s authority to include packaging requirements in REMS requirements; increases civil and criminal penalties for drug manufacturers and distributors for failing to maintain effective controls against diversion of opioids or for failing to report suspicious opioid orders; requires the DEA to estimate the amount of opioid diversion when establishing manufacturing and procurement quotas; implements expanded anti-kickback and financial disclosure provisions; and authorizes the Department of Health and Human Services to implement a demonstration program which would award grants to hospitals and emergency departments to develop, implement, enhance or study alternative pain management protocols and treatments that limit the use and prescription of opioids in emergency departments. While the effect of this legislation is still uncertain, it is likely that our products will be affected by enforcement of the legislation, including through related policies and implementing regulations. It is possible that these changes in law could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow.

Also in October 2018, the Canadian province of British Columbia enacted a statute called the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, which allows the British Columbia government to file a direct action against opioid manufacturers and wholesalers to recover the health care costs it has incurred, and will incur, resulting from an “opioid-related wrong.” The statute defines “opioid-related wrong” to include any breach of a common law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation owed to persons in British Columbia who have been or might be exposed to an opioid product. The statute, among other effects, erases limitation periods, reverses certain burdens of proof as to causation, allows the use of population-based evidence and restricts discovery of some relevant documents. It is possible that this statute, or similar statutes enacted by other jurisdictions, and resultant litigation, could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

In Canada, the prices of patented drug products are subject to regulation by the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB). Under the Canadian Patent Act and Patented Medicines Regulations, patentees of inventions that pertain to drug products sold in Canada are periodically required to file price and sales information about their patented drug products with the PMPRB. The PMPRB reviews this information on an ongoing basis to ensure that the prices charged by pharmaceutical companies for patented drugs are not excessive and comply with the pricing guidelines established by the PMPRB. There is risk that we could fail to comply with the PMPRB’s current guidelines, such as upon the launch of a new product in Canada for which the PMPRB has not yet assessed pricing, or that the guidelines could change such that the current price of our drug products will be considered excessive under the updated guidelines. The Canadian government has published proposed amendments to the Patented Medicines Regulations and, if these amendments are passed and come into force, the PMPRB guidelines will be updated to account for new price regulatory factors. Failure by us to comply with the current or future guidelines could ultimately result in us reducing the prices of the drug products we sell in Canada and/or making a payment to the Canadian government to offset revenues deemed by the PMPRB to be excessive, which could ultimately reduce the revenues and cash flows of our International Pharmaceuticals segment and could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, cash flow and reputation.

Public concern around the abuse of opioids, including law enforcement concerns over diversion and marketing of opioids, and regulatory efforts to combat abuse, could result in costs to our business .

Media stories regarding prescription drug abuse and the diversion of opioids and other controlled substances are commonplace. Aggressive enforcement and unfavorable publicity regarding, for example, the use or misuse of opioid drugs; the limitations of abuse-deterrent formulations; the ability of drug abusers to discover previously unknown ways to abuse our products; public inquiries and investigations into prescription drug abuse; litigation or regulatory activity regarding sales, marketing, distribution or storage of opioids could have a material adverse effect on our reputation and impact on the results of litigation.

Manufacturers of prescription opioid medications have been the subject of significant civil and criminal investigatory and enforcement action even in cases where such medications have received approval from the FDA or similar regulatory authorities. In addition, numerous governmental and private persons and entities are pursuing civil litigation against opioid manufacturers and distributors, invoking current laws and regulations relating to opioids and/or other prescription medicines, as well as novel uses of other laws that seek to hold accountable opioid manufacturers for opioid misuse. See Note 15. Commitments and Contingencies in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report for more information.

Regulatory actions at the federal, state and local level may seek to limit or restrict the manufacturing, distribution or sale of opioids, both directly and indirectly, and/or to impose novel policy or regulatory mechanisms regarding the manufacturing, distribution or sales of opioids. For example, in April 2018, New York enacted the Stewardship Act. See the risk factor “ Our business and financial condition may be adversely affected by legislation ” for more information. Many state legislatures are considering various bills intended to reduce opioid abuse such as by, for example, establishing prescription drug monitoring programs and mandating prescriber education.

Finally, various government entities, including Congress, state legislatures or other policy-making bodies may hold hearings, conduct investigations and/or issue reports calling attention to the opioid crisis, and may mention or criticize the role of manufacturers, including us, in the opioid crisis. Similarly, press organizations have and likely will continue to report on these issues, and such reporting may result in adverse publicity for manufacturers, including us.

Our reporting and payment obligations under the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program and other governmental drug pricing programs are complex and may involve subjective decisions. Any failure to comply with those obligations could subject us to penalties and sanctions.

We are subject to federal and state laws prohibiting the presentation (or the causing to be presented) of claims for payment (by Medicare, Medicaid or other third-party payers) that are determined to be false or fraudulent, including presenting a claim for an item or service that was not provided. These false claims statutes include the federal civil False Claims Act, which permits private persons to bring suit in the name of the government alleging false or fraudulent claims presented to or paid by the government (or other violations of the statutes) and to share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. Such suits, known as qui tam actions, have increased significantly in the healthcare industry in recent years. These actions against pharmaceutical companies, which do not require proof of a specific intent to defraud the government, may result in payment of fines to and/or administrative exclusion from the Medicare, Medicaid and/or other government healthcare programs.

We are subject to laws that require us to enter into a Medicaid Drug Rebate Agreement and a 340B Pharmaceutical Pricing Agreement as a condition for having our products eligible for payment under Medicare Part B and Medicaid. We have entered into such agreements. In addition, we are required to report certain pricing information to the CMS, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on a periodic basis both to facilitate rebate payments to the State Medicaid Programs and to set Medicare Part B reimbursement levels and the prices that can be charged to certain purchasers, including 340B-covered entities and certain government entities.

With regard to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program, on February 1, 2016, CMS issued a Final Rule implementing the Medicaid Drug Rebate provisions incorporated into the PPACA, effective April 1, 2016 in most instances. Implementation of the Final Rule required operational adjustments by us in order to maintain compliance with applicable law. Changes included in the Final Rule revised how manufacturers calculate Average Manufacturer Price and Best Price and also affect the quarterly amounts that we owe to state Medicaid programs through the Medicaid Drug Rebate program. In addition, CMS finalized its proposal to change the reimbursement metrics upon which Medicaid agencies are required to reimburse for covered outpatient drugs. The new reimbursement structure could adversely affect providers’ reimbursement for our products, and thus could adversely affect sales of our products. The Final Rule also expanded the scope of the Medicaid Drug Rebate program to apply to U.S. territories, effective April 1, 2020, which will require operational adjustments and may result in additional rebate liability. Finally, CMS withdrew its proposed definition of “line extension” set forth in the 2012 proposed rule regarding the Medicaid Drug Rebate program and opened a new 60-day comment period soliciting views on how to interpret the relevant PPACA provisions. Nevertheless, the rules related to the definition of a “line extension” product have not been finalized. Additional operational adjustments and financial implications may result upon CMS’s finalization of “line extension” provisions.

We and other pharmaceutical companies have been named as defendants in a number of lawsuits filed by various government entities, alleging generally that we and numerous other pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable by state Medicaid programs, which are partially funded by the federal government. There is a risk we will be subject to similar investigations or litigations in the future, that we will suffer adverse decisions or verdicts of substantial amounts or that we will enter into monetary settlements. Any unfavorable outcomes as a result of such future litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Decreases in the degree to which individuals are covered by healthcare insurance could result in decreased use of our products.

Employers may seek to reduce costs by reducing or eliminating employer group healthcare plans or transferring a greater portion of healthcare costs to their employees. Job losses or other economic hardships may also result in reduced levels of coverage for some individuals, potentially resulting in lower levels of healthcare coverage for themselves or their families. Further, in addition to the fact that the TCJA eliminated the PPACA’s requirement that individuals maintain insurance or face a penalty, additional steps by the Trump Administration or other parties to limit or end cost-sharing subsidies to lower-income Americans may increase instability in the insurance marketplace and the number of uninsured Americans. These economic conditions may affect patients’ ability to afford healthcare as a result of increased co-pay or deductible obligations, greater cost sensitivity to existing co-pay or deductible obligations and lost healthcare insurance coverage or for other reasons. We believe such conditions could lead to changes in patient behavior and spending patterns that negatively affect usage of certain of our products, including some patients delaying treatment, rationing prescription medications, leaving prescriptions unfilled, reducing the frequency of visits to healthcare facilities, utilizing alternative therapies or foregoing healthcare insurance coverage. Such changes may result in reduced demand for our products, which could materially and adversely affect the sales of our products, our business, results of operations and cash flows.

In December 2018, Judge Reed O’Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held in Texas v. Azar that, because the provisions of the PPACA requiring certain individuals to either obtain health insurance or pay a shared responsibility payment are no longer permissible under the U.S. Congress’ taxing power, the entire PPACA is no longer constitutional. While we expect that the decision will be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, changes in law resulting from this ongoing lawsuit or other court challenges to the PPACA could materially and adversely affect the sales of our products, our business, results of operations and cash flows.

Our customer concentration may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We primarily sell our products to a limited number of wholesale drug distributors and retail drug store chains. In turn, these wholesale drug distributors and retail drug store chains supply products to pharmacies, hospitals, governmental agencies and physicians. In addition, this distribution network is continuing to undergo significant consolidation marked by mergers and acquisitions among wholesale drug distributors and retail drug store chains. For example, McKesson Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. are party to an agreement to jointly source generic pharmaceuticals and Express Scripts, through a wholly owned subsidiary, Innovative Product Alignment, LLC, announced it will participate in the Walgreens Boots Alliance Development GmbH group purchasing organization. We expect that consolidation of wholesale drug distributors and retail drug store chains will increase pricing and other competitive pressures on pharmaceutical companies, including us. Additionally, the emergence of large buying groups representing independent retail pharmacies and other drug distributors, and the prevalence and influence of managed care organizations and similar institutions increases the negotiating power of these groups, potentially enabling them to attempt to extract price discounts, rebates and other restrictive pricing terms on our products.

Total revenues from direct customers who accounted for 10% or more of our total consolidated revenues during the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 are as follows:

Revenues from these customers are included within each of our segments. Accordingly, our revenues, financial condition or results of operations may also be unduly affected by fluctuations in the buying or distribution patterns of these customers. These fluctuations may result from seasonality, pricing, wholesaler inventory objectives or other factors. In addition, if we were to lose the business of any of these customers, or if any were to experience difficulty in paying us on a timely basis, our total revenues, profitability and cash flows could be materially adversely affected.

We are currently dependent on outside manufacturers for the manufacture of a significant amount of our products; therefore, we have and will continue to have limited control of the manufacturing process and related costs. Certain of our manufacturers currently constitute the sole source of one or more of our products.

Third party manufacturers currently manufacture a significant amount of our products pursuant to contractual arrangements. Certain of our manufacturers currently constitute the sole source of our products. For example, Teikoku Seiyaku Co., Ltd. is our sole source of LIDODERM ^® and Sandoz Inc. is our sole source of VOLTAREN ^® Gel. Because of contractual restraints and the lead-time necessary to obtain FDA approval and/or DEA registration of a new manufacturer, there are no readily accessible alternatives to these manufacturers and replacement of any of these manufacturers may be expensive and time consuming and may cause interruptions in our supply of products to customers. Our business and financial viability are dependent on these third party manufacturers for continued manufacture of our products, the continued regulatory compliance of these manufacturers and the strength, validity and terms of our various contracts with these manufacturers. Any interruption or failure by these manufacturers to meet their obligations pursuant to various agreements with us on schedule or in accordance with our expectations, which could be the result of one or many factors outside of our control, could delay or prevent our ability to achieve sales expectations, cause interruptions in our supply of products to customers, cause us to incur failure-to-supply penalties, disrupt our operations or cause reputational harm to our company, any or all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We are dependent on third parties to supply all raw materials used in our products and to provide services for certain core aspects of our business. Any interruption or failure by these suppliers, distributors and collaboration partners to meet their obligations pursuant to various agreements with us could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

We rely on third parties to supply all raw materials used in our products. In addition, we rely on third party suppliers, distributors and collaboration partners to provide services for certain core aspects of our business, including manufacturing, warehousing, distribution, customer service support, medical affairs services, clinical studies, sales and other technical and financial services. All third party suppliers and contractors are subject to FDA, and very often DEA, requirements. Our business and financial viability are dependent on the continued supply of goods and services by these third party suppliers, the regulatory compliance of these third parties and on the strength, validity and terms of our various contracts with these third party manufacturers, distributors and collaboration partners. Any interruption or failure by our suppliers, distributors and collaboration partners to meet their obligations pursuant to various agreements with us on schedule or in accordance with our expectations, which could be the result of one or many factors outside of our control, could delay or prevent the development, approval, manufacture or commercialization of our products, result in non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations, cause us to incur failure-to-supply penalties, disrupt our operations or cause reputational harm to our company, any or all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. We may also be unsuccessful in resolving any underlying issues with such suppliers, distributors and partners or replacing them within a reasonable time and on commercially reasonable terms.

All APIs imported into the European Union (EU) must be certified as complying with the good manufacturing practice standards established by the EU, as stipulated by the International Conference for Harmonization. These regulations place the certification requirement on the regulatory bodies of the exporting countries. Accordingly, the national regulatory authorities of each exporting country must: (i) ensure that all manufacturing plants within their borders that export API into the EU comply with EU manufacturing standards and (ii) for each API exported, present a written document confirming that the exporting plant conforms to EU manufacturing standards. The imposition of this responsibility on the governments of the nations exporting API may cause a shortage of API necessary to manufacture our products, as certain governments may not be willing or able to comply with the regulation in a timely fashion, or at all. A shortage in API may cause us to cease manufacturing of certain products or to incur costs and delays to qualify other suppliers to substitute for those API manufacturers unable to export. This could adversely affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flow.

We are dependent upon third parties to provide us with various estimates as a basis for our financial reporting. While we undertake certain procedures to review the reasonableness of this information, we cannot obtain absolute assurance over the accounting methods and controls over the information provided to us by third parties. As a result, we are at risk of them providing us with erroneous data which could have a material adverse impact on our business and or reporting.

If our manufacturing facilities are unable to manufacture our products or the manufacturing process is interrupted due to failure to comply with regulations or for other reasons, it could have a material adverse impact on our business.

If any of our or our third party manufacturing facilities fail to comply with regulatory requirements or encounter other manufacturing difficulties, it could adversely affect our ability to supply products. All facilities and manufacturing processes used for the manufacture of pharmaceutical products are subject to inspection by regulatory agencies at any time and must be operated in conformity with cGMP and, in the case of controlled substances, DEA regulations. Compliance with the FDA’s cGMP and DEA requirements applies to both drug products seeking regulatory approval and to approved drug products. In complying with cGMP requirements, pharmaceutical manufacturing facilities must continually expend significant time, money and effort in production, recordkeeping, quality assurance and quality control so that their products meet applicable specifications and other requirements for product safety, efficacy and quality. Failure to comply with applicable legal requirements subjects our or our third party manufacturing facilities to possible legal or regulatory action, including shutdown, which may adversely affect our ability to supply the product. Additionally, our or our third party manufacturing facilities may face other significant disruptions due to labor strikes, failure to reach acceptable agreement with labor unions, infringement of intellectual property rights, vandalism, natural disaster, storm or other environmental damage, civil or political unrest, export or import restrictions or other events. Were we not able to manufacture products at our or our third party manufacturing facilities because of regulatory, business or any other reasons, the manufacture and marketing of these products would be interrupted. This could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operation, financial condition, cash flows and competitive position.

For example, the manufacturing facilities that are qualified to manufacture CCH, which we sell under the trademark XIAFLEX ^® and may use from time to time in the research and development of CCH for other investigational indications, such as for cellulite, are subject to such regulatory requirements and oversight. If such facilities fail to comply with cGMP requirements, we may not be permitted to sell our products or may be limited in the jurisdictions in which we are permitted to sell them. Further, if an inspection by regulatory authorities indicates that there are deficiencies, including non-compliance with regulatory requirements, we could be required to take remedial actions, stop production or close our facilities, which would disrupt the manufacturing processes, limit the supply of CCH and delay clinical trials and subsequent licensure and/or limit the sale of commercial supplies. In addition, future noncompliance with any applicable regulatory requirements may result in refusal by regulatory authorities to allow use of CCH in clinical trials, refusal of the government to allow distribution of CCH within the U.S. or other jurisdictions, criminal prosecution, fines, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, prohibitions or limitations on the commercial sale of products, refusal to allow the entering into of federal and state supply contracts and follow-on civil litigation.

We purchase certain API and other materials used in our manufacturing operations from foreign and domestic suppliers. The price of API and other materials is subject to volatility. There is no guarantee that we will always have timely, sufficient or affordable access to critical raw materials or supplies from third parties. An increase in the price, or an interruption in the supply, of any API or raw material, could cause our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows to be materially adversely affected.

The DEA limits the availability of the active ingredients used in many of our products as well as the production of these products, and, as a result, our procurement and production quotas may not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or complete clinical trials .

The DEA regulates chemical compounds as Schedule I, II, III, IV or V substances, with Schedule I substances considered to present the highest risk of substance abuse and Schedule V substances the lowest risk. The active ingredients in some of our products are listed by the DEA as Schedule II or III substances under the CSA. Consequently, their manufacture, shipment, storage, sale and use are subject to a high degree of regulation. For example, generally, all Schedule II drug prescriptions must be signed by a physician, physically presented to a pharmacist and may not be refilled without a new prescription.

Furthermore, the DEA limits the availability of the active ingredients used in many of our products and sets a quota on the production of these products. We, or our contract manufacturing organizations, must annually apply to the DEA for procurement and production quotas in order to obtain these substances and produce our products. On October 24, 2018, H.R. 6 was signed into law. Among other things, H.R. 6 amends the Controlled Substances Act with respect to quotas by requiring the DEA to estimate the amount and impact of diversion (including overdose deaths and abuse and overall public health impact) of fentanyl, oxycodone, hydrocodone, oxymorphone or hydromorphone (which we refer to collectively herein as “covered controlled substances”) and to make appropriate quota reductions. As a result, our procurement and production quotas may not be sufficient to meet commercial demand or to complete clinical trials. Moreover, the DEA may adjust these quotas from time to time during the year. Any delay or refusal by the DEA in establishing our quotas, or modification of our quotas, for controlled substances could delay or result in the stoppage of our clinical trials or product launches, or could cause trade inventory disruptions for those products that have already been launched, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

If we are unable to retain our key personnel and continue to attract additional professional staff, we may be unable to maintain or expand our business.

Because of the specialized scientific nature of our business, our ability to develop products and to compete with our current and future competitors will remain highly dependent, in large part, upon our ability to attract and retain qualified scientific, technical and commercial personnel. The loss of key scientific, technical and commercial personnel or the failure to recruit additional key scientific, technical and commercial personnel could have a material adverse effect on our business. While we have consulting agreements with certain key individuals and institutions and have employment agreements with our key executives, we may be unsuccessful in retaining personnel or their services under existing agreements. There is intense competition for qualified personnel in the areas of our activities and we may be unable to continue to attract and retain the qualified personnel necessary for the development of our business.

The trading prices of our securities may be volatile, and investments in our securities could decline in value.

The market prices for securities of Endo, and of pharmaceutical companies in general, have been highly volatile and may continue to be highly volatile in the future. For example, in 2018 , our ordinary shares traded between $5.27 and $18.50 per share on the NASDAQ. The following factors, in addition to other risk factors described in this section, may cause the market value of our securities to fluctuate:

We have no plans to pay regular dividends on our ordinary shares or to conduct ordinary share repurchases.

While our Board of Directors will regularly review our dividend policy, we currently do not intend to pay any cash dividends in the foreseeable future on our ordinary shares. Additionally, while the Board of Directors has approved the 2015 Share Buyback Program, of which there is approximately $2.3 billion available as of December 31, 2018 , we currently do not intend to conduct ordinary share repurchases in the foreseeable future. Any declaration and payment of future dividends to holders of ordinary shares as well as any repurchase of our ordinary shares under the 2015 Share Buyback Program will be at the sole discretion of our Board of Directors and will depend on many factors, including our financial condition, earnings, capital requirements, level of indebtedness, statutory and contractual restrictions applying to the payment of both cash and property dividends or share repurchases and other considerations that our Board of Directors deems relevant. For example, the Companies Act requires Irish companies to have distributable reserves equal to or greater than the amount of any proposed dividend or share repurchase. Unless we are able to generate sufficient distributable reserves from our business activities, the creation of such distributable reserves would involve a reduction of our share premium account, which would require the approval of (i) 75% of our shareholders present and voting at a shareholder meeting and (ii) the Irish High Court. In addition, our existing debt instruments restrict or prevent us from paying dividends on our ordinary shares and conducting ordinary share repurchases. Agreements governing any future indebtedness, in addition to those governing our current indebtedness, may not permit us to pay dividends on our ordinary shares or conduct ordinary share repurchases.

Our operations could be disrupted if our information systems fail, if we are unsuccessful in implementing necessary upgrades or if we are subject to cyber-attacks.

Our business depends on the efficient and uninterrupted operation of our computer and communications systems and networks, hardware and software systems and our other information technology. As such, we continuously invest financial and other resources to maintain, enhance, further develop, replace or add to our information technology infrastructure. For example, we are currently in the process of making changes to our enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems and related software to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the managing of our business and financial operations. Such changes carry risks such as cost overruns, project delays and business interruptions, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Additionally, these measures are not guaranteed to protect against all cybersecurity incidents.

In the ordinary course of our business operations, we collect and maintain information, which includes confidential and proprietary information as well as personal information regarding our customers and employees, in digital form. Data maintained in digital form is subject to risk of cyber-attacks, which are increasing in frequency and sophistication and are made by groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise, including criminal groups, “hackers” and others. Cyber-attacks could include the deployment of harmful malware, viruses, worms, denial-of-service attacks, social engineering and other means to affect service reliability and threaten data confidentiality, integrity and availability. Despite our efforts to monitor and safeguard our systems to prevent data compromise, the possibility of a future data compromise cannot be eliminated entirely, and risks associated with intrusion, tampering and theft remain. In addition, we do not have insurance coverage with respect to system failures or cyber-attacks. If our systems were to fail or we are unable to successfully expand the capacity of these systems, or we are unable to integrate new technologies into our existing systems, our operations and financial results could suffer.

We also have outsourced certain elements and functions of our operations, including elements of our information technology infrastructure, to third parties, some of which are outside the U.S. As a result, we are managing many independent vendor relationships with third parties who may or could have access to our confidential information. The size and complexity of our and our vendors’ systems make such systems potentially vulnerable to service interruptions. The size and complexity of our and our vendors’ systems and the large amounts of confidential information that is present on them also makes them potentially vulnerable to security breaches from inadvertent or intentional actions by our employees, our partners, our vendors or other third parties, or from attacks by malicious third parties.

The Company and its vendors’ sophisticated information technology operations are spread across multiple, sometimes inconsistent platforms, which pose difficulties in maintaining data integrity across systems. The ever-increasing use and evolution of technology, including cloud-based computing, creates opportunities for the unintentional or improper dissemination or destruction of confidential information stored in the Company’s systems.

A breach of our security measures or the accidental loss, inadvertent disclosure, unapproved dissemination, misappropriation or misuse of trade secrets, proprietary information or other confidential information, whether as a result of theft, hacking, fraud, trickery or other forms of deception, or for any other cause, could enable others to produce competing products, use our proprietary technology or information and/or adversely affect our business position. Further, any such interruption, security breach, loss or disclosure of confidential information could result in financial, legal, business and reputational harm to our company and could have a material adverse effect on our revenues, financial condition or results of operations.

In addition, legislators and/or regulators in countries in which we operate are increasingly adopting or revising privacy, information security and data protection laws (Privacy Laws). In particular, the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which became enforceable on May 25, 2018, has extra-territorial scope and substantial fines for breaches (up to 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million , whichever is greater). Enforcement of Privacy Laws also has increased over the past few years. Accordingly, new and revised Privacy Laws, together with stepped-up enforcement of existing Privacy Laws, could significantly affect our current and planned privacy, data protection and information security-related practices, our collection, use, sharing, retention and safeguarding of consumer and/or employee information and some of our current or planned business activities. Any failure to comply with Privacy Laws, could lead to government enforcement actions and significant sanctions or penalties against us, adversely impact our results of operations and subject us to negative publicity.

Foreign regulatory requirements vary, including with respect to the regulatory approval process, and failure to obtain regulatory approval or maintain compliance with requirements in foreign jurisdictions would prevent or impact the marketing of our products in those jurisdictions.

We have worldwide intellectual property rights to market many of our products and product candidates and intend to seek approval to market certain of our existing or potential future products outside of the U.S. Approval of a product by the regulatory authorities of foreign countries is generally required prior to manufacturing or marketing that product in those countries. The approval procedure varies among countries and can involve additional testing and the time required to obtain such approval may differ from that required to obtain FDA approval. Non-U.S. regulatory approval processes generally include risks similar to those associated with obtaining FDA approval, as further described herein. Approval by the FDA does not secure approval by the regulatory authorities of any other country, nor does the approval by foreign regulatory authorities in one country secure approval by regulatory authorities in other foreign countries or by the FDA.

Outside of the U.S., regulatory agencies generally evaluate and monitor the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products and devices and impose regulatory requirements applicable to manufacturing processes, stability testing, recordkeeping and quality standards, among others. These requirements vary by jurisdiction. In certain countries, including emerging and developing markets, the applicable healthcare and drug regulatory regimes are continuing to evolve and new requirements may be implemented. Ensuring and maintaining compliance with these evolving requirements is and will continue to be difficult, time-consuming and costly. In seeking regulatory approvals in non-U.S. jurisdictions, we must also continue to comply with U.S. laws and regulations, including those imposed by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). See the risk factor “ The risks related to our global operations may adversely impact our revenues, results of operations and financial condition .” If we fail to comply with these various regulatory requirements or fail to obtain and maintain required approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to generate revenue from abroad will be adversely affected.

We could be adversely affected by the risks related to our Astora business, which previously manufactured medical devices.

We are subject to various risks associated with having operated a medical device manufacturing business, which risks could have adverse effects, including potential and actual product liability claims for any defective or allegedly defective goods that were distributed and increased government scrutiny and/or potential claims regarding the marketing of medical devices.

We are subject to health information privacy and data protection laws that include penalties for noncompliance.

We are subject to a number of privacy and data protection laws and regulations globally. The legislative and regulatory landscape for privacy and data security continues to evolve. There has been increased attention to privacy and data security issues in both developed and emerging markets with the potential to directly affect our business. This includes federal and state laws and regulations in the U.S. as well as in Europe and other markets. There has also been increased enforcement activity in the U.S. particularly related to data security breaches. A violation of these laws or regulations by us or our third party vendors could subject us to penalties, fines, liability and/or possible exclusion from Medicare or Medicaid. Such sanctions could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Our international operations could expose us to various risks, including risks related to fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates.

In 2018 , approximately 5% of our total revenues were from customers outside the U.S. Some of these sales were to governmental entities and other organizations with extended payment terms. A number of factors, including differing economic conditions, changes in political climate, differing tax regimes, changes in product pricing, changes in diplomatic and trade relationships and political or economic instability in the countries where we do business, could affect payment and credit terms and our ability to collect foreign receivables. A substantial slowdown of the global economy, or major national economies, could negatively affect growth in the markets in which we operate. Such a slowdown could result in national governments making significant cuts to their public spending, including national healthcare budgets, or reducing the level of reimbursement they are willing and able to provide to us for our products and, as a result, adversely affect our revenues, financial condition or results of operations. We have little influence over these factors and changes could have a material adverse impact on our business. In particular, the risk of a debt default by one or more European countries and related European or national financial restructuring efforts may cause volatility in the value of the euro. In addition, foreign sales are influenced by fluctuations in currency exchange rates, primarily the Canadian dollar, euro and British pound. Furthermore, we conduct certain of our manufacturing, research and development and other operations in India, which subjects us to various risks, including those related to fluctuations in the exchange rate for the Indian rupee.

We face risks relating to the expected exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union.

On June 23, 2016, the United Kingdom held a remain-or-leave referendum on the United Kingdom’s membership within the European Union, the result of which favored the Brexit. On March 29, 2017, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom delivered a formal notice of withdrawal to the European Union. On May 22, 2017, the Council of the European Union (the Council), adopted a decision authorizing the opening of Brexit negotiations with the United Kingdom and formally nominated the European Commission as the European Union negotiator. The Council also adopted negotiating directives for the talks. The negotiation has begun and is expected to involve a process of lengthy negotiations which will likely determine the future terms of the United Kingdom’s relationship with the European Union, as well as whether the United Kingdom will be able to continue to benefit from the European Union’s free trade and similar agreements. The negotiation of the withdrawal agreement has been, to date, a lengthy and contentious process and we do not, as at the date of this Annual Report, have certainty as to the terms of the United Kingdom’s future relationship with the European Union. The timing of the Brexit is uncertain and potential impact of Brexit on our market share, sales, profitability and results of operations is unclear. If the United Kingdom were to significantly alter its regulations affecting the pharmaceutical industry, we could face significant new costs. It may also be time-consuming and expensive for us to alter our internal operations in order to comply with new regulations. In addition, since a significant proportion of the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is derived from European Union directives and regulations, the referendum could materially impact the regulatory regime with respect to the approval of our product candidates in the United Kingdom or the European Union. Any delay in obtaining, or an inability to obtain, any regulatory approvals, as a result of Brexit or otherwise, would prevent us from commercializing our product candidates in the United Kingdom and/or the European Union and restrict our ability to generate revenue and achieve and sustain profitability. If any of these outcomes occur, we may be forced to restrict or delay efforts to seek regulatory approval in the United Kingdom and/or European Union for our product candidates, which could significantly and materially harm our business. Similarly, it is unclear at this time what Brexit’s impact will have on our intellectual property rights and the process for obtaining and defending such rights. It is possible that certain intellectual property rights, such as trademarks, granted by the European Union will cease being enforceable in the United Kingdom absent special arrangements to the contrary. Additionally, depending on the terms of Brexit, economic conditions in the United Kingdom, the European Union and global markets may be adversely affected by reduced growth and volatility. The uncertainty both during and after the period of negotiation is also expected to have a negative economic impact and increase volatility in the markets, particularly in the Eurozone. Such volatility and negative economic impact could, in turn, adversely affect the Company’s business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The risks related to our global operations may adversely impact our revenues, results of operations and financial condition .

Our operations extend to numerous countries outside the U.S. and are subject to the risks of conducting business globally. Conducting business internationally, including the sourcing, manufacturing, development, sale and distribution of our products and services across international borders, subjects us to extensive U.S. and foreign governmental trade regulations, such as various anti-bribery laws, including the FCPA, export control laws, customs and import laws, and anti-boycott laws. The FCPA and similar anti-corruption laws in other jurisdictions generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. We cannot provide assurance that our internal controls and procedures will always protect us from criminal acts committed by our employees or third parties with whom we work. If we are found liable for violations of the FCPA or other applicable laws and regulations, either due to our own acts or out of inadvertence, or due to the acts or inadvertence of others, we could suffer significant criminal, civil and administrative penalties, including, but not limited to, imprisonment of individuals, fines, denial of export privileges, seizure of shipments, restrictions on certain business activities and exclusion or debarment from government contracting, as well as reputational harm. Also, the failure to comply with applicable legal and regulatory obligations could result in the disruption of our shipping and sales activities.

In addition, some countries in which our subsidiaries develop, manufacture or sell products are subject to political, economic and/or social instability. Our non-U.S. R&D, manufacturing and sales operations expose us and our employees, representatives, agents and distributors to risks inherent in operating in non-U.S. jurisdictions. For example, in early 2018, we shifted certain of our U.S. R&D functions to India. We also manufacture certain of our products in India and expect that our Indian manufacturing operations could expand in the future. A disruption in our Indian operations could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. These risks include:

We also face the risk that some of our competitors have more experience with operations in such countries or with international operations generally and may be able to manage unexpected crises more easily. Furthermore, whether due to language, cultural or other differences, public and other statements that we make may be misinterpreted, misconstrued or taken out of context in different jurisdictions. Moreover, the internal political stability of, or the relationship between, any country or countries where we conduct business operations may deteriorate, including relationships between the U.S. and other countries. Changes in a country’s political stability or the state of relations between any such countries are difficult to predict and could adversely affect our operations. Any such changes could lead to a decline in our profitability and/or adversely impact our ability to do business. Any meaningful deterioration of the political or social stability in and/or diplomatic relations between any countries in which we or our partners and suppliers do business could have a material adverse effect on our operations.

We cannot provide assurance that one or more of these factors will not harm our business. Any material decrease in our non-U.S. R&D, manufacturing or sales could adversely impact our results of operations and financial condition.

We have a substantial amount of indebtedness which could adversely affect our financial position and prevent us from fulfilling our obligations under such indebtedness, which may require us to refinance all or part of our then outstanding indebtedness. Any refinancing of this substantial indebtedness could be at significantly higher interest rates. Additionally, we have a significant amount of floating rate indebtedness and an increase in interest rates would increase the cost of servicing our indebtedness. Despite our current level of indebtedness, we may still be able to incur substantially more indebtedness. This could increase the risks associated with our substantial indebtedness.

We currently have a substantial amount of indebtedness. As of December 31, 2018 , we have total debt of approximately $8.35 billion in aggregate principal amount. Our substantial indebtedness may:

If we are unable to pay amounts due under our outstanding indebtedness or to fund other liquidity needs, such as future capital expenditures or contingent liabilities as a result of adverse business developments, including expenses related to our ongoing and future legal proceedings and governmental investigations as well as increased pricing pressures or otherwise, we may be required to refinance all or part of our then existing indebtedness, sell assets, reduce or delay capital expenditures or seek to raise additional capital, any of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations. There can be no assurance that we will be able to accomplish any of these alternatives on terms acceptable to us, or at all. Any refinancing of this substantial indebtedness could be at significantly higher interest rates, which will depend on the conditions of the markets and our financial condition at such time. In addition, we and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. If new indebtedness is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we and our subsidiaries now face could intensify.

While interest rates have been at record low levels in recent years, this low interest rate environment likely will not continue indefinitely. In March, June, September and December 2018, the U.S. Federal Reserve raised its benchmark interest rate by a quarter of a percentage point, respectively. At December 31, 2018 , approximately $3.4 billion of principal outstanding under the Term Loan Facility (as defined below) bears interest at floating rates. We also have $997.3 million of remaining credit available through the Revolving Credit Facility (as defined below) at December 31, 2018 . If we borrow amounts under our Revolving Credit Facility , such borrowings could also bear interest at floating rates. As a result, to the extent we have not hedged against rising interest rates, an increase in the applicable benchmark interest rates would increase our cost of servicing our indebtedness and could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Changes in the method of determining the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), or the replacement of LIBOR with an alternative reference rate, may materially adversely affect our interest expense related to our outstanding debt.

A significant portion of our outstanding indebtedness, including $3.4 billion outstanding under the Term Loan Facility at December 31, 2018 , bears interest rates in relation to LIBOR. Any future amounts borrowed under the Term Loan Facility or drawn under the Revolving Credit Facility would also bear interest rates in relation to LIBOR, depending on our repayment election. On July 27, 2017, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) in the United Kingdom announced that it would phase out LIBOR as a benchmark by the end of 2021. It is unclear whether, at that time, LIBOR will cease to exist or whether new methods of calculating LIBOR will be established such that it continues to exist after 2021. In the U.S., efforts to identify a set of alternative U.S. dollar reference interest rates include proposals by the Alternative Reference Rates Committee of the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. If LIBOR ceases to exist, we may need to renegotiate the Credit Agreement (as defined below) and we may not be able to do so on terms that are favorable to us. The overall financial market may be disrupted and there could be significant increases in benchmark rates or borrowing costs to borrowers as a result of the phase-out or replacement of LIBOR. Disruption in the financial market, significant increases in benchmark rates or borrowing costs or our inability to refinance the Credit Agreement with favorable terms could have a material adverse effect on our business, financing activities, financial condition and operations.

Covenants in our debt agreements restrict our business in many ways, a default of which may result in acceleration of certain of our indebtedness.

We are subject to various covenants in the instruments governing our debt that limit our ability and/or our restricted subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default under our indebtedness. If there were an event of default under any of the agreements relating to our outstanding indebtedness, the holders of the defaulted debt could cause all amounts outstanding with respect to that debt to be due and payable immediately, terminate all commitments to extend further credit, foreclose against all the assets comprising the collateral securing or otherwise supporting the debt and pursue other legal remedies. The instruments governing our debt contain cross-default or cross-acceleration provisions that may cause all of the debt issued under such instruments to become immediately due and payable as a result of a default under an unrelated debt instrument. An event of default or an acceleration under one debt agreement could cause a cross-default or cross-acceleration of other debt agreements. Our assets and cash flows may be insufficient to fully repay borrowings under our outstanding debt instruments if the obligations thereunder were accelerated upon an event of default. We may need to conduct asset sales or elect to pursue other alternatives, including proceedings under applicable insolvency laws relating to some or all of our business. Any or all of the above could have a material adverse effect on our business, financing activities, financial condition and operations. For a description of our indebtedness, see Note 14. Debt in the Consolidated Financial Statements included in Part IV, Item 15 of this report .

U.S. federal income tax reform could adversely affect us.

On December 22, 2017, U.S. federal tax legislation, commonly referred to as the TCJA, was signed into law, significantly altering the U.S. Internal Revenue Code effective, in substantial part, January 1, 2018. The TCJA, among other things, includes:

Additionally, the TCJA eliminates the ability to carry back any future net operating losses and only allows for carryforwards, the utilization of which is limited to 80% of taxable income in a given carryforward year. This could affect the timing of our ability to utilize net operating losses in the future.

The aforementioned changes could, individually or in aggregate, increase our future effective tax rate and adversely impact our results of operations and cash flows from operations. Finally, prospective or retroactive regulatory and administrative guidance relating to the TCJA could adversely impact our businesses and our current and future projections of U.S. cash taxes.

Further future changes to tax laws could materially adversely affect us.

Under current law, we are expected to be treated as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, changes to the rules in Section 7874 of the Internal Revenue Code (the Code) or regulations promulgated thereunder or other guidance issued by the Treasury or the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could adversely affect our status as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and any such changes could have prospective or retroactive application to us, Endo Health Solutions Inc. (EHSI) and/or their respective shareholders and affiliates. Consequently, there can be no assurance that there will not exist in the future a change in law that might cause us to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, including with retroactive effect.

In addition, recent Irish legislation created a “controlled foreign corporation” tax regime and future proposals may limit deductibility of certain interest and/or other payments made by our Irish subsidiaries from which we currently benefit. If such changes in law were enacted, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements and cash flow from operations.

In addition, Ireland’s Department of Finance, Luxembourg’s Ministry of Finance, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, the European Commission and other government agencies in jurisdictions where we and our affiliates do business have had an extended focus on issues related to the taxation of multinational corporations and there are several current proposals that, if enacted, would substantially change the taxation of multinational corporations. One example is in the area of “base erosion and profit shifting,” where payments are made between affiliates from a jurisdiction with high tax rates to a jurisdiction with lower tax rates. As a result, the tax laws in the jurisdictions in which we operate could change on a prospective or retroactive basis, and any such changes, including those related to the allocation of income among our subsidiaries, could increase our effective tax rate, which could have a materially adverse impact on our financial statements and cash flows from operations.

The IRS may not agree with the conclusion that we should be treated as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Although we are incorporated in Ireland, the IRS may assert that we should be treated as a U.S. corporation (and, therefore, a U.S. tax resident) for U.S. federal income tax purposes pursuant to Section 7874 of the Code. A corporation is generally considered a tax resident in the jurisdiction of its organization or incorporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Because we are an Irish incorporated entity, we would generally be classified as a non-U.S. corporation (and, therefore, a non-U.S. tax resident) under these rules. Section 7874 provides an exception pursuant to which a non-U.S. incorporated entity may, in certain circumstances, be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Under Section 7874, we would be treated as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes if the former shareholders of EHSI owned, immediately after the Paladin transaction (within the meaning of Section 7874), less than 80% (by both vote and value) of Endo shares by reason of holding shares in EHSI (the ownership test). The former EHSI shareholders owned less than 80% (by both vote and value) of the shares in Endo after the Paladin merger by reason of their ownership of shares in EHSI. As a result, under current law, we are expected to be treated as a non-U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. There is limited guidance regarding the application of Section 7874, including with respect to the provisions regarding the application of the ownership test. Our obligation to complete the Paladin transactions was conditional upon its receipt of a Section 7874 opinion from our counsel, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (Skadden), dated as of the closing date of the Paladin transaction and subject to certain qualifications and limitations set forth therein, to the effect that Section 7874 and the regulations promulgated thereunder should not apply in such a manner so as to cause Endo to be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes from and after the closing date. However, an opinion of tax counsel is not binding on the IRS or a court. Therefore, there can be no assurance that the IRS will not take a position contrary to Skadden’s Section 7874 opinion or that a court will not agree with the IRS in the event of litigation.

The effective rate of taxation upon our results of operations is dependent on multi-national tax considerations.

We earn a portion of our income outside the U.S. That portion of our earnings is taxed at the more favorable rates applicable to the activities undertaken by our subsidiaries outside of the U.S. Our effective income tax rate in the future could be adversely affected by a number of factors, including changes in the mix of earnings in countries with differing statutory tax rates, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, changes in tax laws, the outcome of income tax audits and the repatriation of earnings from our subsidiaries for which we have not provided for taxes. Cash repatriations are subject to restrictions in certain jurisdictions and may be subject to withholding and other taxes. We are subject to the examination of our tax returns and tax arrangements by the IRS and other tax and governmental authorities, such as described in the risk factor “ We may not be able to successfully maintain our low tax rates or other tax positions, which could adversely affect our businesses and financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects .” We regularly assess all of these matters to determine the adequacy of our tax provisions, which are subject to significant discretion. Although we believe our tax provisions are adequate, the final determination of tax audits and any related disputes could be materially different from our historical income tax provisions and accruals. The results of audits and disputes could have a material adverse effect on our financial statements for the period or periods for which the applicable final determinations are made.

Future changes in tax laws and rates, including further administrative or regulatory guidance related to the TCJA, could also affect recorded deferred tax assets and liabilities. Additionally, EU Member States that we operate in and/or have subsidiaries in continue to promulgate tax legislation in response to initiatives by the Economic and Financial Affairs Council of the EU. We continue to evaluate the potential impact of such legislation, which could have a material impact on the Company.

We may not be able to successfully maintain our low tax rates or other tax positions, which could adversely affect our businesses and financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects .

We are incorporated in Ireland and also maintain subsidiaries in, amongst other jurisdictions, the U.S., Canada, India, Bermuda, the United Kingdom and Luxembourg. The IRS and other taxing authorities may continue to challenge our tax positions. The IRS presently is examining certain of our subsidiaries’ U.S. income tax returns for fiscal years ending between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2015 and, in connection with those examinations, is reviewing our tax positions related to, among other things, certain intercompany arrangements, including the level of profit earned by our United States subsidiaries pursuant to such arrangements, and a worthless stock deduction directly attributable to product liability losses. The IRS may examine our tax returns for other fiscal years and/or for other tax positions. Similarly, other tax authorities may examine our non-U.S. tax returns and propose adjustments to our taxes. Such examinations may lead to proposed or actual adjustments to our taxes that may be material, individually or in the aggregate.

Responding to or defending any challenge or proposed adjustment to our tax positions is expensive, consumes time and other resources and diverts management’s attention. We cannot predict whether taxing authorities will conduct an audit challenging any of our other tax positions, the cost involved in responding to and defending any such audit and resulting litigation, or the outcome. If we are unsuccessful in any of these matters, we may be required to pay taxes for prior periods, interest, fines or penalties, and may be obligated to pay increased taxes in the future or repay certain tax refunds, any of which could require us to reduce our operating expenses, decrease efforts in support of our products or seek to raise additional funds, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position, results of operations and growth prospects.

Our ability to use U.S. tax attributes to offset U.S. taxable income may be limited.

Existing and future tax laws and regulations may limit our ability to use U.S. tax attributes including, but not limited to, net operating losses and excess interest expense, to offset U.S. taxable income. For a period of time following the 2014 Paladin transaction, Section 7874 of the Code precludes our U.S. affiliates from utilizing U.S. tax attributes to offset taxable income if we complete certain transactions with related non-U.S. subsidiaries. In addition, the U.S. Treasury Department has issued temporary and proposed regulations related to corporate inversions and earnings stripping. The limitations on the use of certain tax attributes and deductions in these regulations are in addition to existing rules that could impose more restrictive limitations in the event that cumulative changes in our stock ownership within a three-year period exceed certain thresholds. Such changes or the adoption of additional limitations could impact our overall utilization of deferred tax assets, potentially resulting in a material adverse impact to our financial statements and cash flows from operations.

Any attempts to take us over will be subject to Irish Takeover Rules and subject to review by the Irish Takeover Panel.

We are subject to Irish Takeover Rules, under which our board of directors (the Board of Directors) will not be permitted to take any action which might frustrate an offer for our ordinary shares once it has received an approach which may lead to an offer or has reason to believe an offer is imminent.

If pharmaceutical companies are successful in limiting the use of generics through their legislative, regulatory and other efforts, our sales of generic products may suffer.

Many pharmaceutical companies increasingly have used state and federal legislative and regulatory means to delay generic competition. These efforts have included:

If pharmaceutical companies or other third parties are successful in limiting the use of generic products through these or other means, our sales of generic products and our growth prospects may decline. If we experience a material decline in generic product sales, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows will suffer.

We have limited experience in manufacturing biologic products and may encounter difficulties in our manufacturing processes, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations or delay or disrupt manufacture of those of our products that are reliant upon our manufacturing operations.

The manufacture of biologic products requires significant expertise and capital investment. Although we manufacture CCH, the active ingredient in XIAFLEX ^® , in our Horsham, Pennsylvania facility, we have limited experience in manufacturing CCH or any other biologic products. Biologics such as CCH require processing steps that are highly complex and generally more difficult than those required for most chemical pharmaceuticals. In addition, TESTOPEL ^® is manufactured using a unique, proprietary process. If the manufacturing processes are disrupted at the facilities where our biologic products are manufactured, it may be difficult to find alternate manufacturing sites. We may encounter difficulties with the manufacture of the active ingredient of XIAFLEX ^® or TESTOPEL ^® , which could delay, disrupt or halt our manufacture of XIAFLEX ^® and TESTOPEL ^® , respectively, result in product recalls or product liability claims, require write-offs which may affect our financial results, or otherwise materially affect our results of operations.

We are incorporated in Ireland, and Irish law differs from the laws in effect in the U.S. and may afford less protection to, or otherwise adversely affect, our shareholders.

Our shareholders may have more difficulty protecting their interests than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a jurisdiction of the U.S. As an Irish company, we are governed by the Irish Companies Act 2014 (the Companies Act). The Companies Act and other relevant aspects of Irish law differ in some material respects from laws generally applicable to U.S. corporations and shareholders, including, among others, the provisions relating to interested director and officer transactions, acquisitions, takeovers, shareholder lawsuits and indemnification of directors. For example, under Irish law, the duties of directors and officers of a company are generally owed to the company only. As a result, shareholders of Irish companies generally do not have a personal right of action against the directors or officers of a company and may pursue a right of action on behalf of the company only in limited circumstances. In addition, depending on the circumstances, the acquisition, ownership and/or disposition of our ordinary shares may subject individuals to different or additional tax consequences under Irish law including, but not limited to, Irish stamp duty, dividend withholding tax and capital acquisitions tax.

We are an Irish company and it may be difficult to enforce judgments against us or certain of our officers and directors.

We are incorporated in Ireland and a substantial portion of our assets are located in jurisdictions outside the U.S. In addition, some of our officers and directors reside outside the U.S., and some or all of their respective assets are or may be located in jurisdictions outside of the U.S. Therefore, it may be difficult for investors to effect service of process against us or such officers or directors or to enforce against us or them judgments of U.S. courts predicated upon civil liability provisions of the U.S. federal securities laws.

There is no treaty between Ireland and the U.S. providing for the reciprocal enforcement of foreign judgments. The following requirements must be met before the foreign judgment will be deemed to be enforceable in Ireland:

An Irish court will also exercise its right to refuse judgment if the foreign judgment was obtained by fraud, if the judgment violated Irish public policy, if the judgment is in breach of natural justice or if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment. Further, an Irish court may stay proceedings if concurrent proceedings are being brought elsewhere. Judgments of U.S. courts of liabilities predicated upon U.S. federal securities laws may not be enforced by Irish courts if deemed to be contrary to public policy in Ireland.

Our failure to comply with various laws protecting the confidentiality of certain patient health information could result in penalties and reputational damage.

Certain countries in which we operate have, or are developing, laws protecting the confidentiality of individually identifiable personal information, including patient health information. EU member states and other jurisdictions have adopted data protection laws and regulations applicable to such information, which impose significant compliance obligations.

For example, as noted above, the GDPR, which replaced the pre-existing EU Data Protection Directive and became enforceable as of May 25, 2018, imposes strict restrictions on our authority to collect, analyze and transfer personal data regarding persons in the EU, including health data from clinical trials and adverse event reporting. The GDPR also grants individuals whose personal data (which is very broadly defined) is collected or otherwise processed the right to access the data, request its deletion and control its use and disclosure. The GDPR also requires notification of a breach in the security of such data to be provided within 72 hours of discovering the breach. Although the GDPR itself is self-executing across all EU member states, data protection authorities from different EU member states may interpret and apply the regulation somewhat differently, which adds to the complexity of processing personal data in the EU. To date, there has been very little interpretation of the regulation by the EU member states’ different data protection authorities and little time for enforcement, which makes predicting future enforcement very difficult. That uncertainty contributes to liability exposure risk.

As did the pre-existing Data Protection Directive, the GDPR prohibits the transfer of personal data to countries outside of the EU that are not considered by the European Commission to provide an adequate level of data protection, and transfers of personal data to such countries may be made only in certain circumstances, such as where the transfer is necessary for important reasons of public interest or the individual to whom the personal data relates has given his or her explicit consent to the transfer after being informed of the risks involved.

We have policies and practices that we believe make us compliant with applicable privacy regulations, including the GDPR. Nevertheless, there remains a risk of failure to comply with the rules arising from the GDPR or privacy laws in other countries in which we operate. Should a transgression be deemed to have occurred, it could lead to government enforcement actions and significant sanctions or penalties against us, adversely impact our results of operations and subject us to negative publicity. Such liabilities could materially affect our operations.

Item 1B.      Unresolved Staff Comments

None.