UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

FORM 10-Q

[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004

OR

[   ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _________ to _________

Commission file number 1-9114

MYLAN LABORATORIES INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

1500 Corporate Drive
Canonsburg, Pennsylvania 15317
(Address of principal executive offices)
(Zip Code)

(724) 514-1800

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding twelve months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. YES [X] NO [   ]

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). YES [X] NO [   ]

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer’s classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

MYLAN LABORATORIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

FORM 10-Q
For the Quarterly Period Ended
June 30, 2004

INDEX

2

MYLAN LABORATORIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

3

MYLAN LABORATORIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

4

MYLAN LABORATORIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements

5

MYLAN LABORATORIES INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

     In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements (interim financial statements) of Mylan Laboratories Inc. and subsidiaries (“Mylan” or “the Company”) were prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America and the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission for reporting on Form 10-Q; therefore, as permitted under these rules, certain footnotes and other financial information included in audited financial statements were condensed or omitted. The interim financial statements contain all adjustments (consisting of only normal recurring adjustments) necessary to present fairly the interim results of operations, financial position and cash flows for the periods presented.

     These interim financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements and Notes thereto in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004.

     Certain prior year amounts were reclassified to conform to the current year presentation. Such reclassifications had no impact on reported net earnings, earnings per share or shareholders’ equity.

     The interim results of operations for the three months ended June 30, 2004, and the interim cash flows for the three months ended June 30, 2004, are not necessarily indicative of the results to be expected for the full fiscal year or any other future period.

     On October 8, 2003, the Company effected a three-for-two split of its common stock. All share and per share amounts have been adjusted for all periods to reflect the stock split.

     Revenue is recognized for product sales upon shipment when title and risk of loss transfer to the Company’s customers and when provisions for estimates, including discounts, rebates, price adjustments, returns, chargebacks and other promotional programs are reasonably determinable. No revisions were made to the methodology used in determining these provisions during the three months ended June 30, 2004. Accounts receivable are presented net of allowances relating to these provisions. Such allowances were $271,737 and $264,170 as of June 30, 2004, and March 31, 2004. Other current liabilities include $29,080 and $27,924 at June 30, 2004, and March 31, 2004, for certain rebates and other adjustments that are payable to indirect customers.

6

     Selected balance sheet components consist of the following:

     Basic earnings per common share is computed by dividing net earnings by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period. Diluted earnings per common share is computed by dividing net earnings by the weighted average number of common shares outstanding during the period adjusted for the dilutive effect of stock options and restricted stock outstanding. The effect of dilutive stock options on the weighted average number of common shares outstanding was 6,856,000 and 5,908,000 for the three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003.

     Options to purchase 244,300 shares of common stock were outstanding as of June 30, 2004, but were not included in the computation of diluted earnings per share for the three months then ended because to do so would have been antidilutive.

7

     Intangible assets consist of the following components:

     Amortization expense for the three months ended June 30, 2004, and 2003 was $4,550 and $4,685 and is expected to be $14,354, $13,995, $13,512, $13,182 and $12,176 for fiscal years 2006 through 2010, respectively.

8

     Comprehensive earnings consist of the following:

     Accumulated other comprehensive earnings, as reflected on the balance sheet, is comprised solely of the net unrealized gain on marketable securities, net of deferred income taxes.

     As of June 30, 2004 and March 31, 2004, there were 600,000,000 shares of common stock authorized with 303,823,934 and 303,553,121 shares issued. Treasury shares held as of both June 30, 2004 and March 31, 2004 were 35,129,643.

     In May 2002, the Board of Directors approved a Stock Repurchase Program to purchase up to 22,500,000 shares of the Company’s outstanding common stock. During the three months ended June 30, 2003, the Company purchased 2,519,000 shares for approximately $70,866. The Stock Repurchase Program was completed on November 18, 2003.

     On July 25, 2003, Mylan shareholders approved the Mylan Laboratories Inc. 2003 Long-Term Incentive Plan (“the 2003 Plan”). Under the 2003 Plan, 22,500,000 shares of common stock are reserved for issuance to key employees, consultants, independent contractors and non-employee directors of Mylan through a variety of incentive awards including: stock options, stock appreciation rights, restricted shares and units, performance awards, other stock based awards and short-term cash awards. Upon approval of the 2003 Plan, the Mylan Laboratories Inc. 1997 Incentive Stock Option Plan was frozen and no further grants of stock options will be made under that plan.

9

     In accordance with the provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 123, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation and SFAS No. 148, Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure, an amendment of FASB Statement No. 123, the Company accounts for stock option plans under the intrinsic-value-based method as defined in Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees. The following table illustrates the effect on net earnings and earnings per share if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS No. 123 to stock-based employee compensation:

     Segment net revenues represent revenues from unrelated third parties. For the Generic and Brand Segments, segment profit represents segment gross profit less direct research and development, selling and marketing and general and administrative expenses. Corporate/Other includes certain general and administrative expenses, such as legal expenditures, litigation settlements and non-operating income and expense.

10

     The following table presents the results of operations for each of the Company’s operating segments:

Legal Proceedings

(Dollar amounts in this Note 10 are as stated)

     While it is not possible to determine with any degree of certainty the ultimate outcome of the following legal proceedings, the Company believes that it has meritorious defenses with respect to the claims asserted against it and intends to vigorously defend its position. An adverse outcome in any of these proceedings could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

Omeprazole

     In fiscal 2001, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to manufacture, market and sell omeprazole delayed-release capsules, and made “Paragraph IV” certifications to several patents owned by AstraZeneca PLC (“AstraZeneca”) that were listed in the FDA’s “Orange Book”. On September 8, 2000, AstraZeneca filed suit against MPI and Mylan Laboratories Inc. (“Mylan Labs”) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of several of AstraZeneca’s patents. MPI filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims of infringement, and the summary judgment motion remains pending. On May 29, 2003, the FDA approved MPI’s ANDA for the 10 mg and 20 mg strengths of omeprazole delayed-release capsules and, on August 4, 2003, Mylan Labs announced that MPI had commenced the sale of omeprazole 10 mg and 20 mg delayed-release capsules. AstraZeneca then amended the pending lawsuit to assert claims against Mylan Labs and MPI, and filed a separate lawsuit against MPI’s supplier, Esteve Quimica S.A. (“Esteve”), for unspecified money damages and a finding of willful infringement which could result in treble damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, costs of litigation and such further relief as the court deems just and proper.

11

     In November 2002, MPI filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Kremers Urban Development Company (“KUDCo”) and several other companies affiliated with Schwarz Pharma AG (the “Schwarz Pharma Group”) alleging KUDCo and the Schwarz Pharma Group are infringing U.S. patent 5,626,875 (the “‘875 Patent”) in connection with KUDCo’s manufacture and sale of omeprazole capsules in the U.S. KUDCo and the Schwarz Pharma Group asserted defenses and counterclaims in that action alleging the inventors listed on the ‘875 patent are not the actual inventors of the invention described therein, and further seeking money damages alleging the infringement action was not proper. On August 7, 2003, KUDCo and an individual filed a lawsuit against MPI and Esteve in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asserting claims that were not asserted in the Delaware action.

     During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, a settlement was agreed to with respect to the cases involving MPI, KUDCo and the Schwarz Pharma Group, and these lawsuits have been dismissed, with prejudice. Under the settlement, MPI received a payment of $37,500,000, a portion of which represented the reimbursement of legal expenses.

Paclitaxel

     In June 2001, Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly NAPRO Biotherapeutics Inc.) (“Tapestry”) and Abbott Laboratories Inc. (“Abbott”) filed suit against Mylan Labs, MPI and UDL Laboratories Inc. (“UDL”), also a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Company, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that the manufacture, use and sale of MPI’s paclitaxel product, which MPI began selling in July 2001, infringes certain patents owned by Tapestry and allegedly licensed to Abbott. During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, all parties agreed to a settlement of this case and the lawsuit has been dismissed, with prejudice. MPI has agreed to pay $9,000,000 pursuant to the settlement.

Pricing and Medicaid Litigation and Investigations

     Mylan Labs, along with a number of other pharmaceutical manufacturers, was named as a defendant in four lawsuits filed in the state courts of California in which the plaintiffs allege the defendants unlawfully, unfairly and fraudulently manipulated the reported average wholesale price of various products, allegedly to increase third-party reimbursements to others for their products. All four of these cases have been voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiffs against Mylan Labs.

     On September 26, 2003, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued Mylan Labs and 12 other generic drug companies alleging unlawful manipulation of reimbursements under the Massachusetts Medicaid program. The lawsuit identifies three drug products sold by MPI and seeks equitable relief, attorneys’ fees, cost of litigation and monetary damages in unspecified sums.

     On June 26, 2003, UDL and MPI received requests from the U.S. House of Representatives Energy and Commerce Committee requesting information about certain drug products sold by UDL and MPI, in connection with the Committee’s investigation into pharmaceutical reimbursement and rebates under Medicaid. Several states’ Attorneys General (“AGs”) have also sent letters to MPI, UDL and Mylan Bertek Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary, demanding

12

that those companies retain documents relating to Medicaid reimbursement and rebate calculations pending the outcome of unspecified investigations by those AGs into such matters. In addition, in July 2004, Mylan Labs received subpoenas from the AGs of California and Florida in connection with civil investigations purportedly related to Mylan’s price reporting and marketing practices regarding various drugs.

Other Litigation

     The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings that are considered normal to its business. While it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of such other proceedings at this time, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of such other proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

(Dollar amounts in this Note 11 are as stated)

     On July 23, 2004, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Agreement”) to acquire King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“King”) in a stock-for-stock transaction. King is a branded pharmaceutical company headquartered in Bristol, Tennessee.

     Under the terms of the Agreement, each of King’s shareholders will receive .9 shares of Mylan common stock for every common share of King held upon closing. At July 22, 2004, King had approximately 241,400,000 shares of common stock issued and outstanding, which would translate into approximately 217,300,000 shares of Mylan’s common stock being issued to the King shareholders. In addition, at July 22, 2004, King had approximately 6,700,000 outstanding options, which would translate into approximately 6,000,000 shares of Mylan’s common stock being reserved upon closing for exercise of such options after the date the acquisition is consummated. The Agreement contains a provision whereby if the acquisition is not completed, either party may be obligated to pay a termination fee of $85,000,000 under certain limited circumstances.

     The acquisition, which was approved by the Boards of Directors of Mylan and King, is subject to regulatory approvals, customary closing conditions and approval by the respective companies’ shareholders. The transaction is anticipated to close by the end of calendar year 2004 and will be tax-free to shareholders of both companies.

ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND FINANCIAL CONDITION

     The following discussion and analysis addresses material changes in the results of operations and financial condition of Mylan Laboratories Inc. and Subsidiaries (“the Company”, “Mylan” or “we”) for the periods presented. This discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements, the related Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements and Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Results of Operations and Financial Condition included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, and the unaudited interim Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements and related Notes included in Item 1 of this Report on Form 10-Q (“Form 10-Q”).

13

     On October 8, 2003, the Company effected a three-for-two split of its common stock. All share and per share amounts have been adjusted for all periods to reflect the stock split.

     This Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, and the Company’s other SEC filings and public disclosures. This Form 10-Q may contain “forward-looking statements”. These statements are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements may include, without limitation, statements about the Company’s market opportunities, strategies, competition and expected activities and expenditures, and at times may be identified by the use of words such as “may”, “will”, “could”, “should”, “would”, “project”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “expect”, “plan”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “potential”, “intend”, “continue” and variations of these words or comparable words. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and uncertainties. Accordingly, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by these forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, the risks described below under “Risk Factors” in this Item 2. The Company undertakes no obligation to update any forward-looking statements for revisions or changes after the date of this Form 10-Q.

Overview

     Mylan’s financial results for the three months ended June 30, 2004, included net revenues of $339.0 million, net earnings of $82.0 million and earnings per diluted share of $0.30. Consolidated revenue growth of 2% over the same prior year period was driven primarily by new generic products and increased volume on existing generics.

     Generic Segment net revenue increased by 5% or $12.5 million to $267.7 million, while gross profit remained stable. Generic operating income decreased primarily as a result of additional spending in research and development. Brand Segment net revenues decreased by 6% or $4.9 million to $71.3 million primarily due to lower sales of Amnesteem®. Despite the decrease in sales, the Brand Segment realized increased gross profit, gross margins and operating income. The completion in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 of the Phase III clinical studies for nebivolol, a product for the treatment of hypertension, resulted in lower Brand Segment research and development expenses in the first quarter of fiscal 2005.

     On a consolidated basis, gross profit, gross margins and operating income remained stable. Included in the consolidated results for the first quarter of fiscal 2005 were net gains on legal settlements which amounted, net of tax, to approximately $0.06 per diluted share. Concurrent with these net gains, and included as a component of general and administrative expenses, were increased legal expenses relating to these and other pending lawsuits in which the Company is involved. Net gains on legal settlements of approximately $0.05 per diluted share were included in net earnings in the first quarter of the prior year. Excluding these items, diluted earnings per share were $0.24 in the first quarter of fiscal 2005 compared to $0.25 in the prior year.

     Late in the first quarter of fiscal 2005, Mylan’s levothyroxine sodium tablets were approved as the generic version of Abbott Laboratories’ Synthroid®. Mylan had previously marketed levothyroxine sodium tablets as

14

the generic equivalent of Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals’ Unithroid®. Additionally, in July 2004, Mylan received approval from the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) to market levothyroxine sodium tablets as a bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent (i.e., AB-rated) product to Jones Pharma Inc.’s Levoxyl® Tablets. Beginning in the second quarter of fiscal 2005, Mylan will be the first company to offer levothyroxine sodium tablets as AB-rated to Levoxyl, Unithroid and Synthroid. Also during the second quarter, Mylan plans to launch Apokyn™, which has been approved for the acute, intermittent treatment of hypomobility, “off” episodes associated with advanced Parkinson’s disease. Apokyn has been studied as an adjunct to other medications.

     On July 23, 2004, the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (“Agreement”) to acquire King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“King”) in a stock-for-stock transaction. King is a branded pharmaceutical company headquartered in Bristol, Tennessee. The acquisition of King, which reported net revenues for the year ended December 31, 2003, in excess of $1.5 billion, unites Mylan’s core strengths in manufacturing, science, compliance and intellectual property management, with King’s well-developed sales and marketing infrastructure and portfolio of branded products.

     Under the terms of the Agreement, each of King’s shareholders will receive. 9 shares of Mylan common stock for every common share of King held upon closing. At July 22, 2004, King had approximately 241.4 million shares of common stock issued and outstanding, which would translate into approximately 217.3 million shares of Mylan’s common stock being issued to the King shareholders. In addition, at July 22, 2004, King had approximately 6.7 million outstanding options, which would translate into approximately 6.0 million shares of Mylan’s common stock being reserved upon closing for exercise of such options after the date the acquisition is consummated.

     The acquisition, which was approved by the Boards of Directors of Mylan and King, is subject to regulatory approvals, customary closing conditions and approval by the respective companies’ shareholders. The transaction is anticipated to close by the end of calendar year 2004 and will be tax-free to shareholders of both companies.

15

Results of Operations

     The following table illustrates the financial results for the consolidated company and by operating segment:

Segment Results (in thousands)

Segment net revenues represent revenues from unrelated third parties. For the Generic and Brand Segments, segment profit represents segment gross profit less direct research and development, selling and marketing and general and administrative expenses. Corporate/Other includes certain general and administrative expenses, such as legal expenditures, litigation settlements and non-operating income and expense.

16

Quarter Ended June 30, 2004, Compared to Quarter Ended June 30, 2003

Net Revenues and Gross Profit

     Net revenues for the current quarter increased 2% or $7.6 million to $339.0 million, compared to $331.4 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2004. This increase was driven by the Generic Segment, for which revenues increased 5% or $12.5 million to $267.7 million, as a slight decrease in net revenues was realized by the Brand Segment.

     The increase in Generic net revenues was driven primarily by new products launched subsequent to June 30, 2003, which contributed net revenues of $41.8 million. This amount consists primarily of sales of omeprazole, which was launched in August 2003, and levothyroxine sodium tablets, which were approved as the generic version of Abbott Laboratories’ Synthroid® in late June 2004.

     The Company also benefited during the first quarter from favorable volume on its existing products. In total, Generic volume shipped was approximately 3.01 billion doses in the current quarter compared with 2.67 billion doses in the same prior year period. These increases were partially offset by unfavorable pricing on certain existing products, primarily as a result of additional generic competition. Both volume and pricing are impacted by numerous factors, one of which is competition. The entrance into the market of other generic competition could negatively impact the volume and pricing of certain of the Company’s key products.

     For the Brand Segment, net revenues for the first quarter decreased by 6% or $4.9 million to $71.3 million from $76.2 million in the same prior year period. This decrease was principally the result of decreased sales of Amnesteem, for which competition continues. Despite the decrease in Amnesteem revenues, the Company has maintained market share of approximately 44% through the end of the first quarter.

     The Company’s gross profit for the first quarter of fiscal 2005 increased to $179.8 million from $177.4 million while gross margins decreased slightly to 53.0% from 53.5% in the prior year. In the Generic Segment, gross profit increased to $138.8 million from $138.5 million while gross margins decreased to 51.9% from 54.2% in the first quarter of fiscal 2004. The decrease in Generic Segment gross margin is primarily the result of additional generic competition on certain products. This impact was partially offset by products launched subsequent to June 30, 2003, which contributed higher margins.

     In the Brand Segment, gross profit increased 5% or $2.0 million to $40.9 million from $39.0 million and gross margins increased from 51.2% to 57.4%. The increase in Brand gross margin was primarily the result of improved margins on certain existing products as well as a lower percentage of sales contributed by Amnesteem, which generates lower gross margins than the majority of the Brand Segment’s other core products due to royalties paid under a supply and distribution agreement.

17

Operating Expenses

     Research and development (“R&D”) expenses for the current quarter decreased 13% or $3.2 million to $21.5 million from $24.7 million. The Brand Segment, for which R&D expenses decreased by 54% or $6.0 million to $5.2 million, was responsible for the overall decrease, partially offset by a 21% increase in R&D expenses in the Generic Segment to $16.3 million. The decrease in Brand Segment R&D is primarily the result of the completion, during fiscal 2004, of the Phase III clinical studies for nebivolol, for which a New Drug Application (“NDA”) was submitted to the FDA on April 30, 2004, and accepted for filing by the FDA on June 29, 2004. The increase in Generic Segment R&D was due equally to increased R&D headcount, as well as an increase in the amount and timing of current and future Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) submissions, which resulted in increased study costs.

     Selling and marketing expenses for the current quarter increased 9% or $1.6 million to $19.4 million from $17.8 million. The Brand Segment was primarily responsible for this increase, due primarily to costs incurred with respect to Apokyn and nebivolol.

     General and administrative expenses for the quarter increased 29% or $8.7 million to $38.3 million from $29.6 million. Of this increase, $7.4 million was attributable to higher corporate expenses, primarily the result of increased legal expenses, which are an integral part of our ability to continue to deliver new generic products to the market. The remainder of the increase was realized primarily by the Generic Segment.

Litigation Settlements

     Net gains of $26.0 million were recorded in the first quarter of fiscal 2005 with respect to the settlement of various lawsuits. In June 2004, Mylan received $37.5 million in settlement of certain patent litigation claims involving omeprazole. A portion of this settlement represented reimbursement of legal fees and expenses related to the litigation. Partially offsetting this gain, Mylan agreed, also in June 2004, to a $9.0 million settlement resolving all pending litigation with respect to paclitaxel. Net gains of $21.7 million, also from the settlement of litigation, were recorded in the first quarter of the prior year.

Other Income, net

     Other income, net of non-operating expenses, was $0.7 million in the first quarter of fiscal 2005 compared to $3.1 million in the same prior year period.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

     The Company’s primary source of liquidity continues to be cash flows from operating activities, which were $149.3 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004. Working capital as of June 30, 2004, was $1.21 billion, an increase of $67.5 million from the balance at March 31, 2004.

     During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, Mylan received $52.0 million from the settlement of various lawsuits. Of this amount, approximately $35.0 million related to the settlement of certain patent litigation claims involving omeprazole and $17.0 million related to lawsuits which were settled in prior periods. The $9.0 million settlement resolving all pending

18

litigation with respect to paclitaxel was paid during the second quarter of fiscal 2005.

     Cash used in investing activities for the three months ended June 30, 2004, was $70.7 million. Of the Company’s $2.0 billion of total assets at June 30, 2004, $813.0 million was held in cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities. Investments in marketable securities consist primarily of high-quality government and commercial paper. These investments are highly liquid and are available for operating needs. As these instruments mature, the funds are generally reinvested in instruments with similar characteristics.

     Capital expenditures during the three months ended June 30, 2004, were $19.5 million. These expenditures were incurred primarily with respect to the Company’s planned expansions. As such expansions continue, capital expenditures are expected to be approximately $110.0 million to $120.0 million for fiscal 2005.

     Cash used in financing activities was $5.0 million for the three months ended June 30, 2004. Included in financing activities in the prior year was $70.9 million to purchase shares of the Company’s stock under a stock repurchase program. This program was completed on November 18, 2003.

     In the third quarter of fiscal 2004, the Board voted to increase the quarterly dividend by 35% to 3.0 cents per share. Dividend payments totaled $8.1 million during the first quarter of fiscal 2005.

     The Company is involved in various legal proceedings that are considered normal to its business (see Note 10 to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements). While it is not feasible to predict the outcome of such proceedings, an adverse outcome in any of these proceedings could materially affect the Company’s financial position and results of operations.

     The Company is actively pursuing, and is currently involved in, joint projects related to the development, distribution and marketing of both generic and brand products. Many of these arrangements provide for payments by the Company upon the attainment of specified milestones. While these arrangements help to reduce the financial risk for unsuccessful projects, fulfillment of specified milestones or the occurrence of other obligations may result in fluctuations in cash flows from operating activities.

     In order to provide additional operating leverage, if necessary, the Company maintains a revolving line of credit with a commercial bank providing for borrowings of up to $50.0 million. As of June 30, 2004, no funds have been advanced under this line of credit. Additionally, the Company is continuously evaluating the potential acquisition of products, as well as companies, as a strategic part of its future growth. Consequently, the Company may utilize current cash reserves or incur additional indebtedness to finance any such acquisitions, which could impact future liquidity. On July 23, 2004, the Company entered into an Agreement to acquire King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Although the transaction is a stock-for-stock transaction, the Company expects to incur acquisition related costs which could impact future liquidity.

19

Risk Factors

     The following risk factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position or results of operations. These risk factors may not include all of the important factors that could affect our business or our industry or that could cause our future financial results to differ materially from historic or expected results or cause the market price of our common stock to fluctuate or decline. Please refer to our other periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) including our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004. Lastly, please note that the risk factors included in our periodic reports are reviewed and updated for each filing, and from time to time we may supplement or highlight an existing risk factor.

OUR FUTURE REVENUE GROWTH AND PROFITABILITY ARE DEPENDENT UPON OUR ABILITY TO DEVELOP AND LICENSE, OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRE, AND INTRODUCE NEW PRODUCTS ON A TIMELY BASIS IN RELATION TO OUR COMPETITORS’ PRODUCT INTRODUCTIONS. OUR FAILURE TO DO SO SUCCESSFULLY COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Our future revenues and profitability will depend, to a significant extent, upon our ability to successfully develop and license, or otherwise acquire, and commercialize new generic and patent or statutorily protected (usually brand) pharmaceutical products in a timely manner. Product development is inherently risky, especially for new drugs for which safety and efficacy have not been established, and the market is not yet proven. The development and commercialization process, particularly with regard to new drugs, also requires substantial time, effort and financial resources. We may not be successful in commercializing any of the products that we are developing on a timely basis, if at all, which could adversely affect our product introduction plans, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

     FDA approval is required before any prescription drug product, including generic drug products, can be marketed. The process of obtaining FDA approval to manufacture and market new and generic pharmaceutical products is rigorous, time-consuming, costly and largely unpredictable. We may be unable to obtain requisite FDA approvals on a timely basis for new generic or brand products that we may develop, license or otherwise acquire. The timing and cost of obtaining FDA approvals could adversely affect our product introduction plans, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

     The ANDA process often results in the FDA granting final approval to a number of ANDAs for a given product at the time a patent claim for a corresponding brand product or other market exclusivity expires. This often forces us to face immediate competition when we introduce a generic product into the market. Additionally, ANDA approvals often continue to be granted for a given product subsequent to the initial launch of the generic product. These circumstances generally result in significantly lower prices, as well as reduced margins, for generic products compared to brand products. New generic market entrants generally cause continued price and margin erosion over the generic product life cycle.

     The Waxman-Hatch Act provides for a period of 180 days of generic marketing exclusivity for each ANDA applicant that is first to file an ANDA containing a certification of invalidity, non-infringement or unenforceability related to a patent listed with respect to a reference drug product, commonly referred to as a Paragraph IV certification. During this

20

exclusivity period, the FDA cannot grant final approval to any other generic equivalent. If an ANDA containing a Paragraph IV certification is successful, it generally results in higher market share, net revenues and gross margin for that applicant. Even if we obtain FDA approval for our generic drug products, if we are not the first ANDA applicant to challenge a listed patent for such a product, we may lose significant advantages to a competitor who filed its ANDA containing such a challenge. Such a situation could have a material adverse effect on our ability to market that product profitably and on our financial position and results of operations, and the market value of our common stock could decline.

OUR APPROVED PRODUCTS MAY NOT ACHIEVE EXPECTED LEVELS OF MARKET ACCEPTANCE, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR PROFITABILITY, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Even if we are able to obtain regulatory approvals for our new pharmaceutical products, generic or brand, the success of those products is dependent upon market acceptance. Levels of market acceptance for our new products could be impacted by several factors, including:

     Some of these factors are not within our control. Our new products may not achieve expected levels of market acceptance. Additionally, continuing studies of the proper utilization, safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products are being conducted by the industry, government agencies and others. Such studies, which increasingly employ sophisticated methods and techniques, can call into question the utilization, safety and efficacy of previously marketed products. In some cases, these studies have resulted, and may in the future result, in the discontinuance of product marketing. These situations, should they occur, could have a material adverse effect on our profitability, financial position and results of operations, and the market value of our common stock could decline.

A RELATIVELY SMALL GROUP OF PRODUCTS MAY REPRESENT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF OUR NET REVENUES OR NET EARNINGS FROM TIME TO TIME. IF THE VOLUME OR PRICING OF ANY OF THESE PRODUCTS DECLINES, IT COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Sales of a limited number of our products often represent a significant portion of our net revenues and net earnings. If the volume or pricing of our largest selling products declines in the future, our business, financial position and results of operations could be materially adversely affected, and the market value of our common stock could decline.

WE FACE VIGOROUS COMPETITION FROM OTHER PHARMACEUTICAL MANUFACTURERS THAT THREATENS THE COMMERCIAL ACCEPTANCE AND PRICING OF OUR PRODUCTS, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND

21

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Our competitors may be able to develop products and processes competitive with or superior to our own for many reasons, including that they may have:

     Any of these factors and others could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

BECAUSE THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY IS HEAVILY REGULATED, WE FACE SIGNIFICANT COSTS AND UNCERTAINTIES ASSOCIATED WITH OUR EFFORTS TO COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE REGULATIONS. SHOULD WE FAIL TO COMPLY WE COULD EXPERIENCE MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE.

     The pharmaceutical industry is subject to regulation by various federal and state governmental authorities. For instance, we must comply with FDA requirements with respect to the manufacture, labeling, sale, distribution, marketing, advertising, promotion and development of pharmaceutical products. Failure to comply with FDA and other governmental regulations can result in fines, disgorgement, unanticipated compliance expenditures, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production and/or distribution, suspension of the FDA’s review of NDAs or ANDAs, enforcement actions, injunctions and criminal prosecution. Under certain circumstances, the FDA also has the authority to revoke previously granted drug approvals. Although we have internal regulatory compliance programs and policies and have had a favorable compliance history, there is no guarantee that these programs, as currently designed, will meet regulatory agency standards in the future. Additionally, despite our efforts at compliance, there is no guarantee that we may not be deemed to be deficient in some manner in the future. If we were deemed to be deficient in any significant way, our business, financial position and results of operations could be materially affected and the market value of our common stock could decline.

     In addition to the new drug approval process, the FDA also regulates the facilities and operational procedures that we use to manufacture our products. We must register our facilities with the FDA. All products manufactured in those facilities must be made in a manner consistent with current good manufacturing practices (“cGMP”). Compliance with cGMP regulations requires substantial expenditures of time, money and effort in such areas as production and quality control to ensure full technical compliance. The FDA periodically inspects our manufacturing facilities for compliance. FDA approval to manufacture a drug is site-specific. Failure to comply with cGMP regulations at one of our manufacturing facilities could result in an enforcement action brought by the FDA which could include withholding the approval of NDAs, ANDAs or other product applications of that facility. If the FDA were to require one of our manufacturing facilities to cease or limit production, our business could be

22

adversely affected. Delay and cost in obtaining FDA approval to manufacture at a different facility also could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

     We are subject, as are generally all manufacturers, to various federal, state and local laws regulating working conditions, as well as environmental protection laws and regulations, including those governing the discharge of materials into the environment. Although we have not incurred significant costs associated with complying with environmental provisions in the past, if changes to such environmental laws and regulations are made in the future that require significant changes in our operations or if we engage in the development and manufacturing of new products requiring new or different environmental controls, we may be required to expend significant funds. Such changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

OUR REPORTING AND PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE MEDICAID REBATE PROGRAM AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL PRICING PROGRAMS ARE COMPLEX AND MAY INVOLVE SUBJECTIVE DECISIONS. ANY FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THOSE OBLIGATIONS COULD SUBJECT US TO PENALTIES AND SANCTIONS WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE.

     As previously discussed in this Form 10-Q, we and 12 other generic pharmaceuticals companies are defendants in a suit filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and we have also been notified of investigations by a few state attorneys general with respect to Medicaid reimbursement and rebates. Although the regulations regarding reporting and payment obligations are complex, we believe we are properly and accurately calculating and reporting the amounts owed in respect of Medicaid and other governmental pricing programs; however, our calculations are subject to review and challenge by the applicable governmental agencies, and it is possible that any such review could result in material changes. In addition, because our processes for these calculations and the judgments involved in making these calculations involve, and will continue to involve, subjective decisions, these calculations are subject to the risk of errors. Any governmental agencies that might commence an investigation of the Company could impose, based on a claim of violation of fraud and false claims laws or otherwise, civil and/or criminal sanctions, including fines, penalties and possible exclusion from federal health care programs (including Medicaid and Medicare). Some of these laws may impose liability even in the absence of specific intent to defraud. Furthermore, should there be ambiguity with regard to how to properly calculate and report payments – and even in the absence of any such ambiguity – a governmental authority may take a position contrary to a position we have taken, and may impose civil and/or criminal sanctions. Any such penalties or sanctions could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

WE EXPEND A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESOURCES ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS THAT MAY NOT LEAD TO SUCCESSFUL PRODUCT INTRODUCTIONS. FAILURE TO SUCCESSFULLY INTRODUCE PRODUCTS INTO THE MARKET COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE.

23

     Much of our development effort is focused on technically difficult-to-formulate products and/or products that require advanced manufacturing technology. We conduct research and development primarily to enable us to manufacture and market FDA-approved pharmaceuticals in accordance with FDA regulations. Typically, research expenses related to the development of innovative compounds and the filing of NDAs are significantly greater than those expenses associated with ANDAs. As we continue to develop new products, our research expenses will likely increase. Because of the inherent risk associated with research and development efforts in our industry, particularly with respect to new drugs, our research and development expenditures may not result in the successful introduction of FDA approved new pharmaceutical products. Also, after we submit an NDA or ANDA, the FDA may request that we conduct additional studies and as a result, we may be unable to reasonably determine the total research and development costs to develop a particular product. Finally, we cannot be certain that any investment made in developing products will be recovered, even if we are successful in commercialization. To the extent that we expend significant resources on research and development efforts and are not able, ultimately, to introduce successful new products as a result of those efforts, our business, financial position and results of operations may be materially adversely affected, and the market value of our common stock could decline.

A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF OUR NET REVENUES ARE DERIVED FROM SALES TO A LIMITED NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS. ANY SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF BUSINESS WITH ANY OF THESE CUSTOMERS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE.

     A significant portion of our net revenues are derived from sales to a limited number of customers. As such, a reduction in or loss of business with one customer, or if one customer were to experience difficulty in paying us on a timely basis, our business, financial position and results of operations could be materially adversely affected, and the market value of our common stock could decline.

THE USE OF LEGAL, REGULATORY AND LEGISLATIVE STRATEGIES BY COMPETITORS, BOTH BRAND AND GENERIC, INCLUDING SO-CALLED “AUTHORIZED GENERICS”, MAY INCREASE OUR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OR MARKETING OF OUR GENERIC PRODUCTS OR COULD DELAY OR PREVENT SUCH INTRODUCTION. THESE FACTORS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Our competitors, both brand and generic, often pursue strategies to prevent or delay competition from generic alternatives to brand products. These strategies include, but are not limited to:

24

     The Food and Drug Modernization Act of 1997 includes a pediatric exclusivity provision that may provide an additional six months of market exclusivity for indications of new or currently marketed drugs if certain agreed-upon pediatric studies are completed by the applicant. Brand companies are utilizing this provision to extend periods of market exclusivity.

     Some companies have lobbied Congress for amendments to the Waxman-Hatch legislation that would give them additional advantages over generic competitors. For example, although the term of a company’s drug patent can be extended to reflect a portion of the time an NDA is under regulatory review, some companies have proposed extending the patent term by a full year for each year spent in clinical trials, rather than the one-half year that is currently permitted. If proposals like these were to become effective, our entry into the market and our ability to generate revenues associated with new products may be delayed, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

WE DEPEND ON THIRD-PARTY SUPPLIERS AND DISTRIBUTORS FOR THE RAW MATERIALS, PARTICULARLY THE CHEMICAL COMPOUND(S) COMPRISING THE ACTIVE PHARMACEUTICAL INGREDIENT, THAT WE USE TO MANUFACTURE OUR PRODUCTS, AS WELL AS CERTAIN FINISHED GOODS. A PROLONGED INTERRUPTION IN THE SUPPLY OF SUCH PRODUCTS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS, AND THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK COULD DECLINE.

     We typically purchase the active ingredient (i.e. the chemical compounds that produce the desired therapeutic effect in our products), and other materials and supplies that we use in our manufacturing operations, as well as certain finished products, from many different foreign and domestic suppliers.

     Additionally, we maintain safety stocks in our raw materials inventory, and in certain cases where we have listed only one supplier in our applications with the FDA, have received FDA approval to use alternative suppliers should the need arise. However, there is no guarantee that we will always have timely and sufficient access to a critical raw material or finished product. A prolonged interruption in the supply of a single-sourced active ingredient or finished product could cause our financial position and results of operations to be materially adversely affected, and the market

25

value of our common stock could decline. In addition, our manufacturing capabilities could be impacted by quality deficiencies in the products which our suppliers provide, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations, and the market value of our common stock could decline.

WE USE SEVERAL MANUFACTURING FACILITIES TO MANUFACTURE OUR PRODUCTS. HOWEVER, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OUR GENERIC PRODUCTS ARE PRODUCED AT ONE LOCATION. PRODUCTION AT THIS FACILITY COULD BE INTERRUPTED, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Although we have other facilities, we produce a significant number of our generic products at our largest manufacturing facility. A significant disruption at that facility, even on a short-term basis, could impair our ability to produce and ship products to the market on a timely basis, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

WE MAY EXPERIENCE DECLINES IN THE SALES VOLUME AND PRICES OF OUR PRODUCTS AS THE RESULT OF THE CONTINUING TREND TOWARD CONSOLIDATION OF CERTAIN CUSTOMER GROUPS, SUCH AS THE WHOLESALE DRUG DISTRIBUTION AND RETAIL PHARMACY INDUSTRIES, AS WELL AS THE EMERGENCE OF LARGE BUYING GROUPS. THE RESULT OF SUCH DEVELOPMENTS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     We make a significant amount of our sales to a relatively small number of drug wholesalers and retail drug chains. These customers represent an essential part of the distribution chain of generic pharmaceutical products. Drug wholesalers and retail drug chains have undergone, and are continuing to undergo, significant consolidation. This consolidation may result in these groups gaining additional purchasing leverage and consequently increasing the product pricing pressures facing our business. Additionally, the emergence of large buying groups representing independent retail pharmacies and the prevalence and influence of managed care organizations and similar institutions potentially enable those groups to attempt to extract price discounts on our products. The result of these developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

WE MAY BE UNABLE TO PROTECT OUR INTELLECTUAL AND OTHER PROPRIETARY PROPERTY IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Although our brand products may have patent protection, our brand products may not prevent other companies from developing functionally equivalent products or from challenging the validity or enforceability of our patents. If our patents are found to be non-infringed, invalid or not enforceable, we could experience an adverse effect on our ability to commercially promote patented products. We could be required to enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights through litigation, which can be protracted and involve significant expense and an inherently uncertain outcome. Any negative outcome could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the

26

market value of our common stock to decline.

OUR COMPETITORS MAY ALLEGE THAT WE ARE INFRINGING THEIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, FORCING US TO EXPEND SUBSTANTIAL RESOURCES IN RESULTING LITIGATION, THE OUTCOME OF WHICH IS UNCERTAIN. ANY UNFAVORABLE OUTCOME OF SUCH LITIGATION COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Companies that produce brand pharmaceutical products routinely bring litigation against ANDA applicants who seek FDA approval to manufacture and market generic forms of their branded products. These companies allege patent infringement or other violations of intellectual property rights as the basis for filing suit against an ANDA applicant. Litigation often involves significant expense or can delay or prevent introduction of our generic products.

     There may also be situations where the Company uses its business judgment and decides to market and sell products, notwithstanding the fact that allegations of patent infringement(s) by our competitors have not been finally resolved by the courts. The risk involved in doing so can be substantial because the remedies available to the owner of a patent for infringement include, among other things, damages measured by the profits lost by the patent owner and not by the profits earned by the infringer. In the case of a willful infringement, the definition of which is unclear, such damages may be trebled. Moreover, because of the discount pricing typically involved with bioequivalent products, patented brand products generally realize a substantially higher profit margin than bioequivalent products. An adverse decision in a case such as this or in other similar litigation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

WE MAY EXPERIENCE REDUCTIONS IN THE LEVELS OF REIMBURSEMENT FOR PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS BY GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES, HMOS OR OTHER THIRD-PARTY PAYERS. ANY SUCH REDUCTIONS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     Various governmental authorities and private health insurers and other organizations, such as HMOs, provide reimbursement to consumers for the cost of certain pharmaceutical products. Demand for our products depends in part on the extent to which such reimbursement is available. Third-party payers increasingly challenge the pricing of pharmaceutical products. This trend and other trends toward the growth of HMOs, managed healthcare and legislative healthcare reform create significant uncertainties regarding the future levels of reimbursement for pharmaceutical products. Further, any reimbursement may be reduced in the future, perhaps to the point that market demand for our products declines. Such a decline could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

LEGISLATIVE OR REGULATORY PROGRAMS THAT MAY INFLUENCE PRICES OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

27

     Current or future federal or state laws and regulations may influence the prices of drugs and, therefore, could adversely affect the prices that we receive for our products. Programs in existence in certain states seek to set prices of all drugs sold within those states through the regulation and administration of the sale of prescription drugs. Expansion of these programs, in particular, state Medicaid programs, or changes required in the way in which Medicaid rebates are calculated under such programs, could adversely affect the price we receive for our products and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

WE ARE INVOLVED IN VARIOUS LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND MAY EXPERIENCE UNFAVORABLE OUTCOMES OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     We are involved in various legal proceedings including, but not limited to, product liability, breach of contract and claims involving Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements, some of which are described in our periodic reports and involve claims for substantial amounts of money or for other relief. If any of these legal proceedings were to result in an adverse outcome, the impact could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

     With respect to product liability, the Company maintains commercial insurance to protect against and manage the risks involved in conducting its business. Although we carry insurance, we believe that no reasonable amount of insurance can fully protect against all such risks because of the potential liability inherent in the business of producing pharmaceuticals for human consumption. To the extent that a loss occurs, depending on the nature of the loss and the level of insurance coverage maintained, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

WE ENTER INTO VARIOUS AGREEMENTS IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS WHICH PERIODICALLY INCORPORATE PROVISIONS WHEREBY WE INDEMNIFY THE OTHER PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT. IN THE EVENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO PERFORM UNDER THESE INDEMNIFICATION PROVISIONS, IT COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     In the normal course of business, we periodically enter into employment, legal settlement, and other agreements which incorporate indemnification provisions. We maintain insurance coverage which we believe will effectively mitigate our obligations under these indemnification provisions. However, should our obligation under an indemnification provision exceed our coverage or should coverage be denied, our business, financial position and results of operations could be materially affected and the market value of our common stock could decline.

OUR PLANNED ACQUISITION OF KING PHARMACEUTICALS INVOLVES A NUMBER OF INHERENT RISKS, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     On July 23, 2004, we entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger to

28

acquire King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“King”) in a stock-for-stock transaction. The consummation of the acquisition requires the satisfaction of certain conditions to the acquisition that are beyond our control, including requisite shareholder and regulatory approvals. In addition, the anticipated synergies and other benefits from the acquisition may not be achieved, and the integration of the two businesses may involve challenges and costs, all of which could result in the costs of the acquisition exceeding its realized benefits. Furthermore, we cannot predict, among other things: the effect of any changes in customer and supplier relationships and customer purchasing patterns; the impact and effects of legal or regulatory proceedings, actions or changes; general market perception of the transaction; exposure to lawsuits and contingencies associated with the acquisition; our ability to retain key employees; and other uncertainties and matters beyond our control. In addition, if the acquisition is not completed, we may be obligated to pay an $85 million termination fee under certain limited circumstances. We are also responsible for financial advisory, legal, accounting and other fees which must be paid even if the acquisition is not completed. Certain of the above factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause a decline in the market value of our common stock.

OUR ACQUISITION STRATEGIES IN GENERAL INVOLVE A NUMBER OF INHERENT RISKS. THESE RISKS COULD CAUSE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE A DECLINE IN THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK.

     In addition to the King acquisition, we continually seek to expand our product line through complementary or strategic acquisitions of other companies, products and assets, and through joint ventures, licensing agreements or other arrangements. Acquisitions, joint ventures and other business combinations involve various inherent risks, such as assessing accurately the values, strengths, weaknesses, contingent and other liabilities, regulatory compliance and potential profitability of acquisition or other transaction candidates. Other inherent risks include the potential loss of key personnel of an acquired business, our inability to achieve identified financial and operating synergies anticipated to result from an acquisition or other transaction and unanticipated changes in business and economic conditions affecting an acquisition or other transaction. International acquisitions, and other transactions, could also be affected by export controls, exchange rate fluctuations, domestic and foreign political conditions and the deterioration in domestic and foreign economic conditions.

     We may be unable to realize synergies or other benefits expected to result from acquisitions, joint ventures and other transactions or investments we may undertake, or be unable to generate additional revenue to offset any unanticipated inability to realize these expected synergies or benefits. Realization of the anticipated benefits of acquisitions or other transactions could take longer than expected, and implementation difficulties, market factors and the deterioration in domestic and global economic conditions could alter the anticipated benefits of any such transactions. These factors could cause a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause a decline in the market value of our common stock.

OUR FUTURE SUCCESS IS HIGHLY DEPENDENT ON OUR CONTINUED ABILITY TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN KEY PERSONNEL. ANY FAILURE TO ATTRACT AND RETAIN KEY PERSONNEL COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO

29

DECLINE.

     Because our success is largely dependent on the scientific nature of our business, it is imperative that we attract and retain qualified personnel in order to develop new products and compete effectively. If we fail to attract and retain key scientific, technical or management personnel, our business could be affected adversely. Additionally, while we have employment agreements with certain key employees in place, their employment for the duration of the agreement is not guaranteed. If we are unsuccessful in retaining all of our key employees, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

RECENT DECISIONS BY THE FDA, CURRENT BRAND TACTICS AND OTHER FACTORS BEYOND OUR CONTROL HAVE PLACED OUR GENERICS BUSINESS UNDER INCREASING PRESSURE, WHICH COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

If recent FDA rulings should stand, which rulings we believe are contrary to multiple sections of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Administrative Procedures Act, the FDA’s published regulations and the legal precedent on point, then our business and the generic industry as a whole could be materially adversely affected. While we remain in an intense battle with regard to these recent decisions as well as current brand tactics that undermine Congressional intent, we cannot guarantee that we will prevail. If we are not successful, our business, financial position and results of operation could suffer and the market value of our common stock could decline.

WE HAVE BEGUN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AN ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM. AS WITH ANY IMPLEMENTATION OF A SIGNIFICANT NEW SYSTEM, DIFFICULTIES ENCOUNTERED COULD RESULT IN BUSINESS INTERRUPTIONS, AND COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     We have begun the implementation of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system to enhance operating efficiencies and provide more effective management of our business operations. Implementations of ERP systems and related software carry risks such as cost overruns, project delays and business interruptions and delays. If we experience a material business interruption as a result of our ERP implementation, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

30

THERE ARE INHERENT UNCERTAINTIES INVOLVED IN ESTIMATES, JUDGMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE PREPARATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAAP. ANY CHANGES IN ESTIMATES, JUDGMENTS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED COULD HAVE A MATERIAL ADVERSE EFFECT ON OUR BUSINESS, FINANCIAL POSITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS AND COULD CAUSE THE MARKET VALUE OF OUR COMMON STOCK TO DECLINE.

     The consolidated and condensed consolidated financial statements included in the periodic reports we file with the SEC are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”). The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP involves making estimates, judgments and assumptions that affect reported amounts of assets (including intangible assets), liabilities, revenues, expenses and income. Estimates, judgments and assumptions are inherently subject to change in the future, and any such changes could result in corresponding changes to the amounts of assets (including goodwill and other intangible assets), liabilities, revenues, expenses and income. Any such changes could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations and could cause the market value of our common stock to decline.

ITEM 3. QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

     The Company is subject to market risk primarily from changes in the market values of investments in its marketable debt securities. In addition to marketable debt and equity securities, investments are made in overnight deposits, money market funds and marketable securities with maturities of less than three months. These instruments are classified as cash equivalents for financial reporting purposes and have minimal or no interest rate risk due to their short-term nature. We also invest in nonpublic securities that are classified as other assets on our balance sheet and do not consider these investments to be market risk sensitive.

     The following table summarizes the investments in marketable debt and equity securities which subject the Company to market risk at June 30, 2004 and March 31, 2004:

31

     The primary objectives for the marketable debt securities investment portfolio are liquidity and safety of principal. Investments are made to achieve the highest rate of return while retaining principal. Our investment policy limits investments to certain types of instruments issued by institutions and government agencies with investment-grade credit ratings. At June 30, 2004, the Company had invested $633.4 million in marketable debt securities, of which $69.8 million will mature within one year and $563.6 million will mature after one year. The short duration to maturity creates minimal exposure to fluctuations in market values for investments that will mature within one year. However, a significant change in current interest rates could affect the market value of the remaining $563.6 million of marketable debt securities that mature after one year. A 5% change in the market value of the marketable debt securities that mature after one year would result in a $28.2 million change in marketable debt securities.

ITEM 4. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

     An evaluation was performed under the supervision and with the participation of the Company’s management, including the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, of the effectiveness of the design and operation of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures as of June 30, 2004. Based upon that evaluation, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer concluded that the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures were effective. In addition, during the period covered by this report, there have been no significant changes in the Company’s internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect these controls, and no corrective actions taken with regard to significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in such controls.

PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Legal Proceedings

     For a description of the material pending legal proceedings to which the Company is a party, please see our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2004. During the quarter ended June 30, 2004, there were no new material legal proceedings or material developments with respect to pending proceedings other than as described below.

Paclitaxel

     In June 2001, Tapestry Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (formerly NAPRO Biotherapeutics Inc.) (“Tapestry”) and Abbott Laboratories Inc. (“Abbott”) filed suit against Mylan Laboratories Inc. (“Mylan Labs”), Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) and UDL Laboratories Inc. (“UDL”), both wholly-owned subsidiaries, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that the manufacture, use and sale of MPI’s paclitaxel product, which MPI began selling in July 2001, infringes certain patents owned by Tapestry and allegedly licensed to Abbott. During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, all parties agreed to a settlement of this case and the lawsuit has been dismissed, with prejudice. MPI has agreed to pay $9.0 million pursuant to the settlement.

Omeprazole

32

     AstraZeneca PLC (“AstraZeneca”) filed suit against MPI and Mylan Labs in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of several of AstraZeneca’s patents with respect to MPI’s ANDA for omeprazole delayed-release capsules. MPI filed a motion for summary judgment as to all claims of infringement, and the summary judgment motion remains pending. Following approval by the FDA of MPI’s ANDA and the subsequent launch of the product, AstraZeneca amended the pending lawsuit to assert claims against Mylan Labs and MPI, and filed a separate lawsuit against MPI’s supplier, Esteve Quimica S.A. (“Esteve”), for unspecified money damages and a finding of willful infringement.

     In November 2002, MPI filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against Kremers Urban Development Company (“KUDCo”) and several other companies affiliated with Schwarz Pharma AG (the “Schwarz Pharma Group”) alleging KUDCo and the Schwarz Pharma Group are infringing U.S. patent 5,626,875 (the “‘875 Patent”) in connection with KUDCo’s manufacture and sale of omeprazole capsules in the U.S. KUDCo and the Schwarz Pharma Group asserted defenses and counterclaims in that action alleging the inventors listed on the ‘875 patent are not the actual inventors of the invention described therein, and further seeking money damages alleging the infringement action was not proper. On August 7, 2003, KUDCo and an individual filed a lawsuit against MPI and Esteve in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia asserting claims that were not asserted in the Delaware action.

     During the first quarter of fiscal 2005, MPI, KUDCo and the Schwarz Pharma Group agreed to a settlement of their cases and the lawsuits have been dismissed, with prejudice. Pursuant to the settlement, MPI received a payment of $37.5 million, a portion of which represented the reimbursement of legal expenses.

Pricing and Medicaid Litigation and Investigations

     In July 2004, Mylan Labs received subpoenas from the Attorney General of California and the Attorney General of Florida in connection with civil investigations purportedly related to Mylan’s price reporting and marketing practices regarding various drugs.

Other Litigation

     The Company is involved in various other legal proceedings that are considered normal to its business. While it is not feasible to predict the ultimate outcome of such other proceedings at this time, the Company believes that the ultimate outcome of such other proceedings will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position or results of operations.

ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K

a. Exhibits

33

b. Reports on Form 8-K

     On April 5, 2004, the Company filed a Report on Form 8-K regarding correspondence submitted to the FDA on behalf of the Company with regard to its generic transdermal fentanyl product, in response to correspondence submitted on behalf of Alza Corporation.

     On May 11, 2004, the Company filed a Report on Form 8-K announcing its financial results for the year and quarter ended March 31, 2004.

     On May 13, 2004, the Company filed a Report on Form 8-K regarding its 2004 Annual Meeting of Shareholders.

     On May 20, 2004, the Company filed a Report on Form 8-K regarding a presentation to investors at the Banc of America Securities 2004 Health Care Conference.

     On June 23, 2004, the Company filed a Report on Form 8-K regarding correspondence from the FDA with regard to the Company’s transdermal fentanyl product.

     On June 30, 2004, the Company filed a Report on Form 8-K regarding correspondence submitted to the FDA relating to a supplement to Mylan’s citizens petition regarding authorized generics filed with the FDA on February 17, 2004.

34

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

35

36

EXHIBIT INDEX

37