At a Stated Term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of May, two thousand twenty-four.

Corp., J M Smith Corporation, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, DBA Smith Drug Company, KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated also known as Kinney Drugs, Inc, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, UFCW local 1500 Welfare Fund, Teamsters Western Region & Local 177 Health Care Plan, Fraternal Order Of Police Miami Lodge 20, Insurance Trust Fund, Law Enforcement Health Benefits, Inc., Teamsters Local No. 1150 Prescription Drug Benefit Plan, Teamsters Local 237 Welfare Fund and Teamsters Local 237 Retirees Benefit Fund, Albertsons Companies, Inc., H-E-B L.P., The Kroger Co., Walgreen Co., Plaintiffs- Appellants,

Forest Laboratories Inc., Forest Laboratories Ireland, LTD, Forest Laboratories Holdings Ltd., Forest Laboratories, LLC, Allergan Sales LLC, Allergan, Inc., Allergan USA, Inc., Abbvie Inc., Watson Pharma, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc. (NY), Watson Laboratories, Inc. (CT), Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Actavis, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Torrent Pharma Inc., Amerigen Pharmaceuticals Ltd., AmerigenPharmaceuticals Inc., Glenmark Generics Inc.,

6/4/2024 Case 23-410, Document 302-1, 06/04/2024, 3625224, Page2 of 2 USA, Glenmark Generics Ltd., Glenmark Pharmaceuticals S.A., Hetero Labs Ltd, Hetero Drugs LTD., Hetero USA Inc., Indchemie Health Specialties Private Ltd., Alkem Laboratories Ltd., Ascend Laboratories, LLC, ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc. (NV), Watson Laboratories, Inc. (DE), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Defendants - Appellees.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the district court’s judgment dismissing Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice is AFFIRMED.

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

For the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order at Dkt. No. 438, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case, its member cases, and its related cases: 20-cv-5735, 20- cv-07110, 20-cv-08754, 20-cv-08756, 20-cv-05538, 20-cv-09793, 20-cv-10087, 20-cv-05813, 20-cv-07580, 20-cv-07352, 20-cv-05837, 20-cv-07492, 20-cv-05826, 20-cv-07309, 20-cv- 05901, 20-cv-06769, 20-cv-07177, 20-cv-06647, 20-cv-07296, 20-cv-07304, 20-cv-06223.

Dated: August 18, 2023 New York, New York

United States District Judge

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

This order addresses several pending motions to seal in this case.

End-Payor Plaintiffs are directed to publicly file their Opposition to Nonresident Defendants’ Rule 12(b)(2) Motion to Dismiss End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Non-New York Claims for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and the accompanying Evans Declaration.

The parties are directed to file public versions of the filings at issue, in the form directed by this order, on the public docket by March 31, 2023.

The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close the motions at Dkt. Nos. 391, 394, 401, 407, 410, 415, 417, 421, 423.

Plaintiffs, citing FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 570 U.S. 136 (2013), further reiterate that each side deal provided payments to each generic manufacturer with first-filer exclusivity “even though none of them had any claim to damages as a result of ...

... company that was acquired in 2014 for $25 billion, Dkt. No. 427 ¶ 8 n.5—would need 32 Case 1:20-cv-05735-LJL Document 438 Filed 02/21/23 Page 33 of 53 to disclose in its SEC public filings a $15 million acquisition of patents, none ...

... for Watson paying $4 million to Moksha8, Dkt. No. 270-6; and (2) a “Letter Agreement” between Forest and Moksha8 stating that Moksha8 was in material breach of at least three “Loan and Security Agreement[s]” but nonetheless ...

LEWIS J. LIMAN, United States District Judge:

For the reasons stated in the Opinion and Order filed by the Court today: Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Direct Purchaser and Retailer Plaintiffs’ Complaints for failure to state a claim is GRANTED, and the Direct Purchaser and Retailer Plaintiffs’ Complaints are DISMISSSED with prejudice.

Nonresident Defendants’ motion to dismiss the End-Payor Plaintiffs’ Complaint’s non-New York, state-law claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and Teva Israel’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction are DENIED as moot.

The parties shall meet and confer with respect to potential redactions and, by February 28, 2023, the parties shall file any proposed redactions pursuant to the Court’s Individual Practices.

In addition, the parties are invited to inform the Court of any errors in citation, typography, or similar errors they discover in their review.