Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

x      ANNUAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017

OR

o         TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from              to

Commission File No. 001-31298

LANNETT COMPANY, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

9000 State Road

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19136

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (215) 333-9000

(Address of principal executive offices and telephone number)

Securities registered under Section 12(b) of the Exchange Act:

Common Stock, $.001 Par Value

(Title of class)

Securities registered under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act: None

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes x  No o

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.  Yes o  No x

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 12 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 o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company.  See definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.  (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).  Yes x  No o

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12B-12 of the Exchange Act).  Yes o  No x

Aggregate market value of common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant, as of December 31, 2016 was $613,312,878 based on the closing price of the stock on the NYSE.

As of July 31, 2017, there were 37,284,317 shares of the registrant’s common stock, $.001 par value, outstanding.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements.  Any statements made in this Annual Report that are not statements of historical fact or that refer to estimated or anticipated future events are forward-looking statements.  We have based our forward-looking statements on management’s beliefs and assumptions based on information available to them at this time.  Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, words such as “may,” “will,” “expect,” “believe,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “could,” “would,” “estimate,” “continue,” or “pursue,” or the negative other variations thereof or comparable terminology, are intended to identify forward-looking statements.  Such forward-looking statements reflect our current perspective of our business, future performance, existing trends and information as of the date of this filing.  These include, but are not limited to, our beliefs about future revenue and expense levels, growth rates, prospects related to our strategic initiatives and business strategies, express or implied assumptions about government regulatory action or inaction, anticipated product approvals and launches, business initiatives and product development activities, assessments related to clinical trial results, product performance and competitive environment, anticipated financial performance and integration of acquisitions.  The statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict.  We caution the reader that certain important factors may affect our actual operating results and could cause such results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements.  We believe the risks and uncertainties discussed under the “Item 1A - Risk Factors” and other risks and uncertainties detailed herein and from time to time in our SEC filings may affect our actual results.

We disclaim any obligation to publicly update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.  We also may make additional disclosures in our Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K and in other filings that we may make from time to time with the SEC.  Other factors besides those listed here could also adversely affect us.

3

Table of Contents

PART I

ITEM 1.                        DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS

Business Overview

Lannett Company, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company,” “Lannett,” “we,” or “us”) was incorporated in 1942 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and reincorporated in 1991 as a Delaware corporation.  We develop, manufacture, market and distribute generic versions of brand pharmaceutical products.  We report financial information on a quarterly and fiscal year basis with the most recent being the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.  All references herein to a “fiscal year” or “Fiscal” refer to the applicable fiscal year ended June 30.

The Company has experienced total net sales growth at a compounded annual growth rate in excess of 28% over the past sixteen years.  In that time period, total net sales increased from $12.1 million in fiscal year 2001 to $633.3 million in fiscal year 2017.  This growth has been achieved through filing and receiving approvals for abbreviated new drug applications (“ANDAs”), strategic partnerships and launches of additional manufactured drugs, opportunities resulting from our strong historical record of regulatory compliance, as well as the acquisitions of Silarx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Silarx”) and Kremers Urban Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“KUPI”).

All products that we currently manufacture and/or distribute are prescription products with the exception of a small portfolio of over-the-counter products manufactured by Silarx Pharmaceuticals, Inc., our wholly-owned subsidiary.  Our top five products in fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015 accounted for 53%, 57% and 78% of total net sales, respectively.

Competitive Strengths

Vertically Integrated Manufacturer, Supplier and Distributor of Narcotics and Controlled Drugs.  In July 2008, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) granted Cody Laboratories, Inc. (“Cody Labs”) a license to directly import concentrated poppy straw for conversion into opioid-based active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”) for commercial use in various dosage forms for pain management.  This license, along with Cody Labs’ expertise in API development and manufacture, allows the Company to perform in a market with high barriers to entry, no foreign dosage form competition and limited domestic competition.  Because of this vertical integration, the Company has direct control of its supply and can avoid increased costs associated with buying APIs from third-party manufacturers, thereby achieving higher margins.

Proven Ability to Develop Successful Products and Achieve Scale in Production.  We believe that our ability to select viable products for development, efficiently develop such products, including obtaining any applicable regulatory approvals, vertically integrate into certain markets and achieve economies of scale in production are critical to our success in the generic pharmaceutical industry.  We intend to focus on long-term profitability driven in part by securing market positions with a limited number of vertically integrated competitors.

Efficient Development Systems and Manufacturing Expertise for New Products.  We believe that our manufacturing expertise, low overhead expenses, skilled product development and marketing capabilities can help us remain competitive in the generic pharmaceutical market.  We intend to dedicate significant capital toward developing new products because we believe our success is linked to our ability to continually introduce new generic products into the marketplace.  Competition from new and other market participants for the manufacture and distribution of certain products would likely affect our market share with respect to such products as well as force us to reduce our selling price for such products due to their increased availability.  As a result, we believe that our success depends on our ability to properly assess the competitive market for new products, including market share, the number of competitors and the generic unit price erosion.  We intend to reduce our exposure to competitive influences that may negatively affect our sales and profits, including the potential saturation of the market for certain products, by continuing to emphasize maintenance of a strong product selection R&D pipeline.

Mutually Beneficial Supply and Distribution Arrangements.  In 2004, we entered into an exclusive ten-year distribution agreement (the “JSP Distribution Agreement”) with Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals (“JSP”) covering four different product lines.  On August 19, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with JSP to extend its initial contract to continue as the exclusive distributor in the United States of three JSP products: Butalbital, Aspirin, Caffeine with Codeine Phosphate Capsules USP; Digoxin Tablets USP; and Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets USP.  The amendment to the original agreement extends the initial contract, which was due to expire on March 22, 2014, for five years.  In connection with the amendment, the Company issued a total of 1.5 million shares of the Company’s common stock to JSP and its designees.  In accordance with its policy related to renewal and extension costs for recognized intangible assets, the Company recorded a $20.1 million expense in cost of sales, which represented the fair value of the shares on August 19, 2013.  If the parties agree to a second five-year extension from March 23, 2019 to March 23, 2024, the Company is required to issue to JSP or its designees an additional 1.5 million shares of the Company’s common stock.  Both Lannett and JSP have the right to terminate the contract if one of the parties does not cure a material breach of the contract within thirty (30) days of notice from the non-breaching party.  Levothyroxine Sodium and Digoxin collectively accounted for 29% of our total net sales in fiscal year 2017.

4

Table of Contents

During the renewal term of the JSP Distribution Agreement, the Company is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to purchase minimum dollar quantities of JSP products.  There is no guarantee that the Company will continue to meet the minimum purchase requirement for Fiscal 2018 and thereafter.  If the Company does not meet the minimum purchase requirements, JSP’s sole remedy is to terminate the agreement.

Dependable Supplier to our Customers.  We believe we are viewed within the generic pharmaceutical industry as a strong, dependable supplier.  We have cultivated strong and dependable customer relationships by maintaining adequate inventory levels, employing a responsive order filling system and prioritizing timely fulfillment of those orders.  A majority of our orders are filled and shipped on or the day after we receive the order.

Strong Track Record of Obtaining Regulatory Approvals for New Products.  During the past three fiscal years, we have received numerous approved ANDA /ANDA supplements from the Food and Drug Administration (the “FDA”).  Although the timing of ANDA approvals by the FDA is uncertain, we currently expect to receive several more during Fiscal 2018.  These regulatory approvals will enable us to manufacture and supply a broader portfolio of generic pharmaceutical products.

Reputation for Regulatory Compliance.  We have a strong track record of regulatory compliance.  We believe that we have strong effective regulatory compliance capabilities and practices due to the hiring of qualified individuals and the implementation of strong current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”).  Our agility in responding quickly to market events and a reputation for regulatory compliance position us to avail ourselves of market opportunities as they are presented to us.

In addition, narcotics which are classified by the DEA as “controlled drugs” are subject to a rigorous regulatory compliance regimen.  We have been granted a license from the DEA to import raw concentrated poppy straw for conversion into commercial APIs.  Such licenses are renewed annually and non-compliance could result in a license not being renewed.  As a result, we believe that our strong reputation for regulatory compliance allows us to have a competitive edge in managing the production and distribution of controlled drugs.

Business Strategies

Continue to Broaden our Product Lines Through Internal Development and Strategic Partnerships.

We are focused on increasing our market share in the generic pharmaceutical industry while concentrating additional resources on the development of new products, with an emphasis on controlled substance products.  We continue to improve our financial performance by expanding our line of generic products, increasing unit sales to current customers, creating manufacturing efficiencies and managing our overhead and administrative costs.

We have four strategies for expanding our product offerings: (1) deploying our experienced R&D staff to develop products in-house; (2) entering into product development agreements or strategic alliances with third-party product developers and formulators; (3) purchasing ANDAs from other generic manufacturers; and (4) marketing drugs under brand-names.  We expect that each strategy will facilitate our identification, selection and development of additional pharmaceutical products that we may distribute through our existing network of customers.

In 2016, the Company announced a strategic partnership with YiChang HEC ChangJiang Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, an HEC Group company, to co-develop a generic insulin pharmaceutical product for the U.S. market.  The product is currently in late stage development.  The Company will manage the remaining clinical and regulatory steps specific for a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license to market and will have the exclusive U.S. marketing rights to the product.

We have several existing supply and development agreements with both international and domestic companies; in addition, we are currently in negotiations on similar agreements with additional companies through which we can market and distribute future products.  We intend to capitalize on our strong customer relationships to build our market share for such products.

Mergers and Acquisitions.

We are active in evaluating potential mergers and acquisitions opportunities that are a strategic fit and accretive to our business.  We are particularly interested in opportunities that globalize our business, further vertically integrate our operations, or enhance shareholder value through tax favorable jurisdiction treatment.  During Fiscal 2016, we completed the acquisition of KUPI, the former subsidiary of global biopharmaceuticals company UCB S.A.  KUPI is a U.S. specialty pharmaceuticals manufacturer focused on the development of products that are difficult to formulate or utilize specialized delivery technologies.  Strategic benefits of the acquisition include expanded manufacturing capacity, a diversified product portfolio and pipeline and complementary R&D expertise.

5

Table of Contents

Improve our Operating Profile in Certain Targeted Specialty Markets.

In certain situations, we may increase our focus on particular specialty markets within the generic pharmaceutical industry.  By narrowing our focus to specialty markets, we can provide product alternatives in categories with relatively fewer market participants.  We plan to strengthen our relationships with strategic partners, including providers of product development research, raw materials, APIs and finished products.  We believe that mutually beneficial strategic relationships in such areas, including potential financing arrangements, partnerships, joint ventures or acquisitions, could enhance our competitive advantages in the generic pharmaceutical market.

Leverage Ability to Vertically Integrate as a Manufacturer, Supplier and Distributor of Controlled Substance Products.

One initiative that is at the core of the Company’s strategy is to continue leveraging the asset we acquired in 2007, Cody Labs.  In July 2008, the DEA granted Cody Labs a license to directly import concentrated poppy straw for conversion into opioid-based commercial APIs for use in various dosage forms for pain management.  The value of this license comes from the fact that, to date, only a limited number of companies in the U.S. have been granted this license.  This license, along with Cody Labs’ expertise in API development and manufacture, allows the Company to perform in a market with high barriers to entry, no foreign dosage form competition and limited domestic competition.  Because of this vertical integration, the Company has direct control of its supply and can avoid increased costs associated with buying APIs from third-party manufacturers, thereby achieving higher margins.  The Company can also leverage this vertical integration not only for direct supply of opioid-based APIs, but also for the manufacture of non-opioid-based APIs.  In January 2017, the Company announced a $50 million expansion plan in conjunction with Forward Cody, an unrelated non-profit economic development corporation, (“Forward Cody”) to expand our operations in Cody, WY.

The Company believes that the demand for controlled substance, pain management drugs will continue to grow as the “Baby Boomer” generation ages.  By concentrating additional resources in the development of opioid-based APIs and abuse deterrent features to current dosage forms as well as drugs to treat addiction to opioids, the Company is well-positioned to take advantage of this opportunity.  The Company is currently vertically integrated on three products with several others in various stages of development.

Key Products

Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets

Levothyroxine Sodium tablets, which are used for the treatment of thyroid deficiency by patients of various ages and demographic backgrounds, are the most prescribed drug in the United States. The product is manufactured by JSP and distributed by us under the JSP Distribution Agreement and is produced and marketed in 12 potencies. Net sales of Levothyroxine Sodium tablets totaled $174.0 million in fiscal year 2017. Levothyroxine is a narrow therapeutic index drug and very difficult to formulate which results in a less competitive market environment for this molecule. In our distribution of these products, we compete with two brand Levothyroxine Sodium products, AbbVie’s Synthroid and Pfizer’s Levoxyl, as well as generic products from Mylan and Sandoz.

Fluphenazine Tablets

Fluphenazine tablets are used for the treatment of antipsychosis.  Net sales of Fluphenazine tablets totaled $54.0 million in fiscal year 2017.  Currently, our primary generic competitor for this drug is Mylan.

Digoxin Tablets

Digoxin tablets, which are used to treat congestive heart failure in patients of various ages and demographics, are produced and marketed with two different potencies. This product is manufactured by JSP and we distribute it under the JSP Distribution Agreement. Net sales of this product totaled $9.5 million in fiscal year 2017. The product is highly potent based on Environment, Health & Safety (“EHS”), regulations and its API availability is limited given there are only two active suppliers, based on the FDA Drug Master File (“DMF”) list.  In our distribution of these products, we compete with generic products from Mylan, Impax, West-Ward as well as the brand product Lanoxin distributed by Concordia and an authorized generic (“AG”) distributed by Par.

Acetazolamide Tablets

Acetazolamide tablets are used for the treatment of glaucoma. The product is a carbonic anhydrase inhibitor that reduces fluid pressure in the eyeball. It also increases the removal of water from the body by the kidneys and may block certain nerve discharges that may contribute to seizures. Net sales of Acetazolamide tablets totaled $18.8 million in fiscal year 2017.  Currently, our primary generic competitors for this drug are Heritage and Taro.

Butalbital Products

We distribute three products containing Butalbital.  We have manufactured and sold Butalbital with Aspirin and Caffeine capsules for more than 25 years.  Butalbital with Aspirin, Caffeine and Codeine Phosphate capsules are manufactured by JSP and distributed under the JSP Distribution Agreement.  Additionally, in September 2012, the Company was approved to sell Butalbital, Acetaminophen and Caffeine Tablets. 

6

Table of Contents

Butalbital products, which are orally administered in capsule or tablet dosage forms, are prescribed to treat migraines and tension headaches caused by contractions of the muscles in the neck and shoulder area.  The drug is prescribed primarily for adults of various demographics.  Migraines are an increasingly prevalent condition in the United States, and we believe the demand for effective medical treatments will continue to increase.  Net sales of Butalbital products totaled $19.6 million in fiscal year 2017. Although new innovator drugs to treat migraines have been introduced by brand-name drug companies, we believe that there is still a loyal following of doctors and consumers who prefer to use Butalbital products for treatment.  In our distribution of these products, we compete with products from Mallinckrodt, Mikart, Qualitest, Watson, West-Ward, Teva and Breckenridge.

Ursodiol Capsules

Ursodiol Capsules are produced and marketed in 300 mg capsules and are used for the treatment of gallstones.  Net sales of Ursodiol capsules totaled $48.6 million in fiscal year 2017.  We compete with generic products from Epic and Mylan, as well as the brand product Actigall distributed by Teva.

Omeprazole Capsules

Omeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor that decreases the amount of acid produced in the stomach. The product is a generic version of the branded drug Prilosec®. It is indicated for heartburn or irritation of the esophagus caused by gastroesophageal reflux disease. KUPI produces Omeprazole DR capsules in 10mg, 20mg and 40mg dosages. Net sales of Omeprazole capsules totaled $25.3 million in fiscal year 2017. In distributing this product, we compete primarily with Sandoz, Dr. Reddy’s and Zydus.

Methylphendiate Hydrochloride ER

Methylphenidate ER is a central nervous system stimulant indicated for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) in children six years of age and older, adolescents and adults up to the age of 65. The product is a generic version of the branded drug Concerta®, which is currently marketed by Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and competes with a generic product marketed by Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals and Mylan as well as an AG marketed by Teva. The product was approved by the FDA in 2013 with a therapeutic equivalence rating of AB, meaning the FDA deemed it therapeutically equivalent to the brand-name drug, Concerta®.  Net sales of Methylphenidate ER tablets totaled $32.7 million in fiscal year 2017.

During a teleconference in November 2014, the FDA informed KUPI that it had concerns about whether generic versions of Concerta® (methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release tablets), including KUPI’s Methylphenidate ER product, are therapeutically equivalent to Concerta®.  The FDA indicated that its concerns were based in part on adverse event reports concerning lack of effect and its analyses of pharmacokinetic data.  The FDA informed KUPI that it was changing the therapeutic equivalence rating of its product from “AB” (therapeutically equivalent) to “BX.”  A BX-rated drug is a product for which data are insufficient to determine therapeutic equivalence; it is still approved and can be prescribed, but the FDA does not recommend it as automatically substitutable for the brand-name drug at the pharmacy.

During the November 2014 teleconference, the FDA also asked KUPI to either voluntarily withdraw its product or to conduct new bioequivalence (“BE”) testing in accordance with the recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence to Concerta proposed in a new draft BE guidance that FDA issued earlier that November.  The FDA had approved the KUPI product (and originally granted it an AB rating) in 2013, on the basis of KUPI data showing its product met bioequivalence criteria set forth in draft bioequivalence guidance that FDA had issued in 2012.  The FDA’s position concerning the KUPI product was the subject of a public announcement by the agency.  The Company agreed to conduct new bioequivalence studies per the new draft bioequivalence guidance.  KUPI submitted the data from those studies to FDA in June 2015. The Company continues to pursue the FDA to obtain its decision on the submitted study as well as its response on whether it will restore the AB-rating for our product.

On October 18, 2016, the Company received notice from the FDA that it will seek to withdraw approval of the Company’s ANDA for Methylphenidate ER.  The FDA’s notice includes an opportunity for the Company to request a hearing on this matter.  The Company initially had until November 17, 2016 to request the hearing and until December 19, 2016 to submit all data, information and analyses upon which the request for a hearing relies.

On November 30, 2016, the Company announced that the FDA granted a 90-day extension to submit documentation related to the hearing request.  On February 22, 2017, the Company announced that the FDA suspended indefinitely the deadline to submit supporting documentation related to the hearing request in order to give the FDA additional time to retrieve documents requested by the Company.

Pain Management Products

Cocaine Topical® Solution (“C-Topical®”), a vertically integrated product, is produced and marketed under a preliminary new drug application (“PIND”) in two different strengths and two different size containers.  C-Topical® is utilized primarily for the anesthetization of the patient during ear, nose or throat surgery, sinuplasty and in emergency rooms.

7

Table of Contents

The Company has completed a Phase III clinical trial and our Clinical Research Organization (“CRO”) is assembling the data for our New Drug Application (“NDA”) for C-Topical® and continues to actively market the product utilizing a group of brand representatives in key market locations throughout the United States.

Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution is produced and marketed in three different size containers.  We manufacture this product at Cody Labs and are currently finishing the manufacturing methods and capabilities to make the API.  This drug is prescribed primarily for the management of pain in adults.

Oxycodone HCl Oral Solution (“Oxycodone”) was produced until August 20, 2012 and marketed until October 4, 2012 in two different size containers, at which point, as a result of FDA enforcement actions against all market participants, the Company voluntarily exited the market.  Prior to the enforcement actions the Company had submitted an ANDA to the FDA and subsequently received approval and commenced shipping Oxycodone in September 2014.  This drug is prescribed primarily for the management and relief of moderate to moderately severe pain.

Other products in the pain management franchise include Hydromorphone HCl tablets, which we are vertically integrated, and Codeine Sulfate tablets.  Additionally, the Company added several pain management products through the Silarx acquisition.  Net sales of pain management products totaled $26.1 million in fiscal year 2017.

Validated Pharmaceutical Capabilities

Lannett’s 31,000 square foot manufacturing facility sits on 3.5 acres of Company-owned land.  In addition, we own a 63,000 square foot building residing on 3.0 acres of Company-owned land.  This facility is located within one mile of our manufacturing facility.  The facility houses our Quality Control (“QC”) laboratories, packaging and research and development and has capacity for additional manufacturing space, if needed.  We also own a 66,000 square foot building on 7.3 acres of land, which is used for certain administrative functions, warehouse space and shipping.  It also has capacity for additional manufacturing space, if needed.  All three of these buildings are located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The manufacturing facility of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Cody Labs, consists of an approximately 73,000 square foot facility located on 15.0 acres of land in Cody, Wyoming.  Cody Labs leases the facility from Cody LCI Realty, LLC (“Realty”), a variable interest entity (“VIE”) in which the Company had a 50% ownership interest until November 30, 2016, when the Company acquired the remaining 50% interest.

The Silarx manufacturing facility consists of an 110,000 square foot facility located in Carmel, New York and sits on 25.8 acres of land.  The facility currently houses manufacturing, packaging, research and development and has capacity for additional manufacturing space, if needed.

In November 2015, we completed the acquisition of KUPI.  KUPI’s 432,000 square foot Seymour, Indiana facility contains approximately 107,000 square feet of manufacturing space as well as a leased 116,000 square foot temperature/humidity controlled storage warehouse.  Seymour has had satisfactory inspections conducted by the FDA and EMA and similar regulatory authorities of Japan, Taiwan, Brazil, Korea and Turkey.  Since 2008, KUPI has made significant improvements to its facility and equipment.  These improvements enabled the facility to increase production from approximately 1.2 billion doses in 2008 to over 2.7 billion doses in 2014.  KUPI also completed a 20,000 square foot expansion of the facility which increased capacity to 3.9 billion doses.

We have adopted many processes in support of regulations relating to cGMPs in the last several years and we believe we are operating our facilities in substantial compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations.  In designing our facilities, full attention was given to material flow, equipment and automation, quality control and inspection.  A granulator, an automatic film coating machine, high-speed tablet presses, blenders, encapsulators, fluid bed dryers, high shear mixers, high-speed bottle filling and high potency or specialized manufacturing suites are a few examples of the sophisticated product development, manufacturing and packaging equipment used in the production process.  In addition, our Quality Control laboratory facilities are equipped with high precision instruments, such as automated liquid chromatographs (“HPLC” and “UPLC”), gas chromatographs and laser particle size analyzers.

We continue to pursue “Quality by Design” for improving and maintaining quality control and quality assurance programs in our pharmaceutical development and manufacturing facilities, which is outlined in the FDA report entitled, “Pharmaceutical Quality for the 21st Century: A Risk-Based Approach.”  The FDA periodically inspects our production facilities to determine our compliance with the FDA’s manufacturing standards.  Typically, after completing its inspection, the FDA will issue a report, entitled a “Form 483,” containing observations arising from an inspection.  The FDA’s observations may be minor or severe in nature and the degree of severity is generally determined by the time necessary to remediate the cGMP violation, any consequences to the consumer of the products and whether the observation is subject to a Warning Letter from the FDA. By strictly complying with cGMPs and the various FDA guidelines, Good Laboratory Practices (“GLPs”), as well as adherence to our Standard Operating Procedures, we have never received a cGMP Warning Letter in more than 70 years of business.

8

Table of Contents

Research and Development Process

Over the past several years, we have invested heavily in R&D projects.  The costs of these R&D efforts are expensed during the periods incurred.  We believe that such costs may be recovered in future years when we receive approval from the FDA to manufacture and distribute such products.  We have embarked on a plan to grow in future years, which includes organic growth to be achieved through our R&D efforts.  We expect that our growing list of generic products under development will drive future growth.  Over the past several years, we have hired additional personnel in product development, production and formulation.  The following steps outline the numerous stages in the generic drug development process:

1.)          Formulation and Analytical Method Development.  After a drug candidate is selected for future sale, product development scientists perform various experiments in order for the binding agents or lubricants to incorporate APIs into a dosage form that will then, not only be therapeutically equivalent to the brand name drug, but match its size and shape as well.  These experiments will result in the creation of a number of product formulations to determine which formula will be most suitable for our subsequent development process.  Various formulations are tested in the laboratory to measure results against the innovator brand drug.  During this time, we may use reverse engineering methods on samples of the innovator drug to determine the type and quantity of inactive ingredients.  During the formulation phase, our R&D chemists begin to develop an analytical, laboratory testing method.  The successful development of this test method will allow us to test developmental and commercial batches of the product in the future.  All of the information used in the final formulation, including the analytical test methods adopted for the generic drug candidate, will be included as part of the Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls (“CMC”) section of the ANDA submitted to the FDA.

2.)          Scale-up and Tech Transfer.  After product development, scientists and the R&D chemists agree on a final formulation for use in moving the drug candidate forward in the developmental process, we then attempt to increase the batch size of the product.  The batch size represents the standard magnitude to be used in manufacturing a batch of the product.  The determination of batch size affects the amount of raw material that is used in the manufacturing process and the number of expected dosages to be created during the production cycle.  We attempt to determine batch size based on the amount of active ingredient in each dosage, the available production equipment and unit sales projections.  The scaled-up batch is then generally produced in our commercial manufacturing facilities.  During this manufacturing process, we document the equipment used, the amount of time in each major processing step and any other steps needed to consistently produce a batch of that product.  This information, generally referred to as the validated manufacturing process, is included in the ANDA.

3.)          Bioequivalency and Clinical Testing.  After a successful scale-up of the generic drug batch, we schedule and perform generally required bioequivalency testing on the product and in some cases, clinical testing if required by the FDA.  These procedures, which are generally outsourced to third parties, include testing the absorption of the generic product in the human bloodstream compared to the absorption of the innovator drug.  The results of this testing are then documented and reported to us to determine the “success” of the generic drug product.  Success, in this context, means that we are able to demonstrate that our product is comparable to the innovator product in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, performance characteristics and intended use.

Bioequivalence (meaning that the product performs in the same manner and in the same amount of time as the innovator drug) and a stable formula are the primary requirements for a generic drug approval (assuming the manufacturing plant is in compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations).  With the exception of 505(b)(2) NDA filings, lengthy and costly clinical trials proving safety and efficacy, which are required by the FDA for innovator drug approvals, are typically unnecessary for generic companies.  If the results are successful, we will continue the collection of information and documentation for assembly of the drug application.

4.)          Submission of the ANDA for FDA Review and Approval.  The ANDA process became formalized under The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, also known as the Hatch-Waxman Act (“Hatch-Waxman Act”).  The Hatch-Waxman Act amended the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) to permit the FDA to review and approve an ANDA for a generic equivalent of a new drug product, which previously received FDA approval through its new drug approval process, without having the generic drug company conduct costly clinical trials.  An ANDA is a comprehensive submission that contains, among other things, data and information pertaining to the active pharmaceutical ingredient, drug product formulation, specifications and stability of the generic drug, as well as analytical methods, manufacturing process validation data and quality control procedures.

We currently file our ANDAs and NDAs electronically.  On July 9, 2012, the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act was enacted, which included the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments of 2012 (“GDUFA”).  Under these Amendments the FDA committed to reviewing 90% of complete electronic generic applications within 10 months after the date of submission.  Applications filed after October 2014 are reviewed under this process.  While we have received approval for some of our ANDAs in as little as 14 months, we have also waited longer than 77 months before receiving approval.  The FDA has advised that electronic submissions of applications may shorten the approval process, however ANDAs and NDAs submitted for our products may not receive FDA approval on a timely basis, or at all.

9

Table of Contents

When a generic drug company files an ANDA with the FDA, it must certify either that (i) no patent was filed for the listed drug (a “paragraph I” certification), (ii) the patent has expired (a “paragraph II” certification), (iii) the patent will expire on a specified date and the ANDA filer will not market the drug until that date (a “paragraph III” certification), or (iv) the patent is invalid or would not be infringed by the manufacture, use, or sale of the new drug (a “paragraph IV” certification). A paragraph IV certification must be provided to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder of the approved NDA to which the ANDA refers.  A paragraph IV certification can trigger an automatic 30 month stay of the ANDA if the innovator company files a claim which would delay the approval of the generic company’s ANDA.

As of June 30, 2017, we have 9 paragraph IV certifications pending with the FDA.  Three of the P-IV certifications are currently being challenged.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to the Zomig® nasal spray product, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca UK Limited and Impax Laboratories, Inc. filed two patent infringement complaints against the Company in July 2014.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to Thalomid®, Celgene Corporation and Children’s Medical Center Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in January 2015.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to Suprep®, Braintree Laboratories, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in March 2017.  Refer to Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies” for further information on the current status of the aforementioned P-IV challenges.

Sales and Customer Relationships

We sell our pharmaceutical products to generic pharmaceutical distributors, drug wholesalers, chain drug retailers, private label distributors, mail-order pharmacies, other pharmaceutical manufacturers, managed care organizations, hospital buying groups, governmental entities and health maintenance organizations.  We promote our products through direct sales, trade shows and bids.  Our practice of maintaining adequate inventory levels, employing a responsive order filling system and prioritizing timely fulfillment of those orders have contributed to a strong reputation among our customers as a dependable supplier of high quality generic pharmaceuticals.

Management

We have been focused on enhancing the quality of our management team in anticipation of continuing growth.  As part of our growth, we have established corporate and non-corporate officer positions.  We have hired experienced personnel from large, established, brand pharmaceutical companies as well as competing generic companies to complement the skills and knowledge of the existing management team.  As we continue to grow, additional personnel may need to be added to our management team.  We intend to hire the best people available to expand the knowledge base and expertise within our personnel ranks.

10

Table of Contents

Current Products

As of the date of this filing, we manufactured and/or distributed the following products:

*Distributed under the JSP Distribution Agreement

(1) Products not listed each represented less than 1% of total net sales in Fiscal 2017.

Unlike brand, innovator companies, we generally do not develop new molecules.  However, we have filed and received two patents for APIs at our Cody, Wyoming manufacturing facility, with additional patents in process. Additionally, the Company has completed the Phase III clinical trial and our CRO is assembling the data for our New Drug Application.  The Company continues to actively market the product utilizing a group of brand representatives in key market locations throughout the United States.

In fiscal year 2017, we received several ANDA/ANDA supplement approvals from the FDA.  The following summary contains more specific details regarding our latest ANDA approvals.  Market data was obtained from Wolters Kluwer and IMS.

In July 2016, we received a letter from the FDA with approval to market and launch Paroxetine Extended Release Tablets USP, 12.5 mg, 25 mg and 37.5 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Paxil CR Extended-Release Tablets USP, 12.5 mg, 25 mg and 37.5 mg, of Apotex Technologies.  According to IMS, total U.S. sales in 2015 of Paroxetine Extended Release-Tablets USP, 12.5 mg, 25 mg and 37.5 mg, at Average Wholesale Price (“AWP”) were approximately $122.0 million.

In September 2016, we received a letter from the FDA with approval to market and launch Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual Tablets, 2 mg/0.5 mg and 8 mg/2 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Suboxone Sublingual Tablets, 2 mg/0.5 mg and 8 mg/2 mg.  According to IMS, total U.S. sales in 2015 of Buprenorphine and Naloxone Sublingual Tablets, 2 mg/0.5 mg and 8 mg/2 mg, at AWP were approximately $270.0 million.

In November 2016, we received a letter from the FDA with approval to market and launch Memantine Hydrochloride Tablets USP, 5 mg and 10 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Namenda Tablets, 5 mg and 10 mg, of Forest Laboratories LLC. According to IMS, total U.S. sales in 2015 of Memantine Hydrochloride Tablets USP, 5 mg and 10 mg, at AWP were approximately $50.0 million.

In November 2016, we also received a letter from the FDA with approval to market and launch Metaxalone Tablets USP, 800 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Skelaxin® of King Pharmaceuticals, Inc.  According to IMS, total U.S. sales for the twelve months ended September 2016 of Metaxalone Tablets USP, 800 mg, at AWP were approximately $173.0 million.

11

Table of Contents

In December 2016, we received a letter from the FDA with approval of our Supplemental New Drug Application (“sNDA)” for Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution CII, color and flavor added, 20 mg/mL.  According to IMS, total U.S. sales for the twelve months ended October 2016 of Morphine Sulfate Oral Solution, at AWP were approximately $22.0 million.

In December 2016, we also received a letter from the FDA with approval to market and launch Lopinavir and Ritonavir Oral Solution USP, 80 mg/20 mg per mL, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Kaletra® Oral Solution of AbbVie Inc.

In May 2017, we received a letter from the FDA with approval to market and launch Levocetirizine Dihydrochloride Oral Solution, 2.5 mg/5 mL (0.5 mg/mL), the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Xyzal® Oral Solution, 2.5 mg/5 mL (0.5 mg/mL), of UCB Inc.

In June 2017, we received a letter from the FDA with approval to market and launch Amantadine Hydrochloride Capsules USP, 100 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference standard drug, Amantadine Hydrochloride Capsules USP, 100 mg, of Sandoz Pharmaceuticals.  Previously, the branded version of the product was marketed as Symmetrel® Capsules, 100 mg.  For the twelve months ended April 2017, total U.S. sales of Amantadine Hydrochloride Capsules USP, 100 mg, at AWP were approximately $25.0 million, according to IMS.

In June 2017, we also received approval to market and launch Niacin Extended-Release Tablets USP, 500 mg and 1000 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Niaspan® Extended-Release Tablets, 500 mg and 1000 mg, of AbbVie Inc.  For the 12 months ended April 2017, total U.S. sales of Niacin Extended-Release Tablets USP, 500 mg and 1000 mg, at AWP were approximately $152.0 million, according to IMS.

In June 2017, we also received approval to market and launch Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets USP, 5 mg/300 mg, 7.5 mg/300 mg and 10 mg/300 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference standard drug, Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets USP, 5 mg/300 mg, 7.5 mg/300 mg and 10 mg/300 mg, of Mikart, Inc. The product is also marketed under the brand names Vicodin®, Vicodin ES® and Vicodin HP®.  For the twelve months ended April 2017, total U.S. sales of Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets USP, 5 mg/300 mg, 7.5 mg/300 mg and 10 mg/300 mg, at AWP were approximately $67.1 million, according to IMS.

In June 2017, we also received approval to market and launch Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets USP, 5 mg/325 mg, 7.5 mg/325 mg and 10 mg/325 mg, the therapeutic equivalent to the reference listed drug, Norco® Tablets, 5 mg/325 mg, 7.5 mg/325 mg, and 10 mg/325 mg, of Allergan Pharmaceuticals International Limited.  The product is also marketed under the brand name Lortab® 5 mg/325 mg, 7.5 mg/325 mg, and 10 mg/325 mg.  For the twelve months ended April 2017, total U.S. sales of Hydrocodone Bitartrate and Acetaminophen Tablets USP, 5 mg/325 mg, 7.5 mg/325 mg and 10 mg/325 mg, at AWP were approximately $744.3 million, according to IMS.

We have additional products currently under development which are orally administered solid oral-dosage products (i.e., tablet/capsule) or oral solutions, nasal, topicals or parentarels, as well as other dosage forms designed to be generic equivalents to brand-named innovator drugs.  Our developmental drug products are intended to treat a diverse range of indications.  The products under development are at various stages in the development cycle—formulation, scale-up, clinical testing and FDA review.

The cost associated with each product that we are currently developing is dependent on numerous factors, including but not limited to, the complexity of the active ingredient’s chemical characteristics, the price of the raw materials and the FDA-mandated requirement of bioequivalence studies (depending on the FDA’s Orange Book classification).  With the introduction of GDUFA and additional guidance issued by the FDA, the cost to develop a new generic product varies but now totals several million dollars.

In addition, we currently own several ANDAs that are dormant for products which we currently do not manufacture and market.  Occasionally, we review such ANDAs to determine if the market potential for any of these older drugs has recently changed to make it attractive for us to reconsider manufacturing and selling.  If we decide to introduce one of these products into the consumer market, we must review the original ANDA and related documentation to ensure that the approved product specifications, formulation and other factors meet current FDA requirements for the marketing of the applicable drug.  Generally, in these situations, we file a supplement to the FDA for the applicable ANDA, informing the FDA of any significant changes in the manufacturing process, the formulation, the raw material supplier, or another major feature of the previously approved ANDA.  We would then redevelop the product and submit it to the FDA for supplemental approval.  The FDA’s approval process for an ANDA supplement is similar to that of a new ANDA.

In addition to the efforts of our internal product development group, we have contracted with numerous outside firms for the formulation and development of several new generic drug products.  These outsourced R&D products are at various stages in the development cycle—formulation, analytical method development and testing and manufacturing scale-up.  These products include orally administered solid dosage products, injectables and nasal delivery products that are intended to treat a diverse range of medical indications. 

12

Table of Contents

We intend to ultimately transfer the formulation technology and manufacturing process for some of these R&D products to our own commercial manufacturing sites.  We initiated these outsourced R&D efforts to complement the progress of our own internal R&D efforts.  As of June 30, 2017, we had 19 ANDAs awaiting review and approval at the FDA.

We recorded R&D expenses of $42.1 million in fiscal year 2017, $45.1 million in fiscal year 2016 and $30.3 million in fiscal year 2015.  These amounts included expenses associated with bioequivalence studies, internal development resources as well as outsourced development.  While we manage all R&D from our principal executive office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, we have also been taking steps to capitalize on favorable development costs in other countries.  We have strategic relationships with various companies that either act as contract research organizations or API suppliers as well as dosage form manufacturers.  In addition, U.S.-based research organizations have been engaged for product development to enhance our internal development.  Fixed payment arrangements are established between Lannett and these research organizations and in some cases include a royalty provision.  Development payments are normally scheduled in advance, based on attaining development milestones.

Raw Materials and Finished Goods Suppliers

Our use of raw materials in the production process consists of using pharmaceutical chemicals in various forms that are generally available from several sources.  FDA approval is required in connection with the process of using active ingredient suppliers.  In addition to the raw materials we purchase for the production process, we purchase certain finished dosage inventories.  We sell these finished dosage form products directly to our customers along with the finished dosage form products manufactured in-house.  We generally take precautionary measures to avoid a disruption in raw materials and finished goods, such as finding secondary suppliers for certain raw materials or finished goods when available.

The Company’s primary finished goods inventory supplier is JSP, in Bohemia, New York.  Purchases of finished goods from JSP accounted for 36% of our inventory purchases in fiscal year 2017, 52% in fiscal year 2016 and 68% in fiscal year 2015.  On March 23, 2004, the Company entered into an agreement with JSP for the exclusive distribution rights in the United States to the current line of JSP products, in exchange for 4.0 million shares of the Company’s common stock.  The JSP products covered under the agreement included Butalbital, Aspirin, Caffeine with Codeine Phosphate Capsules; Digoxin Tablets; and Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets, sold generically and under the brand-name Unithroid®.  On August 19, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with JSP to extend its initial contract to continue as the exclusive distributor in the United States of three JSP products: Butalbital, Aspirin, Caffeine with Codeine Phosphate Capsules USP; Digoxin Tablets USP; and Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets USP.  The amendment to the original agreement extends the initial contract, which was due to expire on March 22, 2014, for five years through March 23, 2019.  In connection with the amendment, the Company issued a total of 1.5 million shares of the Company’s common stock to JSP and its designees.  The Company recorded a $20.1 million expense in cost of sales, which represented the fair value of the shares on August 19, 2013.  If the parties agree to a second five year extension from March 23, 2019 to March 23, 2024, the Company is required to issue to JSP or its designees an additional 1.5 million shares of the Company’s common stock.  Both Lannett and JSP have the right to terminate the contract if one of the parties does not cure a material breach of the contract within thirty (30) days of notice from the non-breaching party.

During the renewal term of the JSP Distribution Agreement, the Company is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to purchase minimum dollar quantities of JSP products.  There is no guarantee that the Company will continue to meet the minimum purchase requirement for Fiscal 2018 and thereafter.  If the Company does not meet the minimum purchase requirements, JSP’s sole remedy is to terminate the agreement.

We have entered into definitive supply and development agreements with JSP, Summit Bioscience LLC, HEC Pharm Group, Pharma Pass II LLC and various other international and domestic companies.  The Company is currently in negotiations on similar agreements with other companies and is actively seeking additional strategic partnerships, through which it will market and distribute products manufactured in-house or by third parties.  The Company plans to continue evaluating potential merger and acquisition opportunities as well as product acquisitions that are a strategic fit and accretive to the business.

Customers and Marketing

We sell our products primarily to wholesale distributors, generic drug distributors, mail-order pharmacies, group purchasing organizations, chain drug stores and other pharmaceutical companies.  The pharmaceutical industry’s largest wholesale distributors, Amerisource Bergen, McKesson and Cardinal Health, accounted for 28%, 21% and 6%, respectively, of our total net sales in fiscal year 2017 and 25%, 16% and 7%, respectively, of our total net sales in fiscal year 2016.  Our largest chain drug store customer accounted for 5% of total net sales in fiscal year 2017 and fiscal year 2016.

Sales to wholesale customers include “indirect sales,” which represent sales to third-party entities, such as independent pharmacies, managed care organizations, hospitals, nursing homes and group purchasing organizations, collectively referred to as “indirect customers.” 

13

Table of Contents

We enter into definitive agreements with our indirect customers to establish pricing for certain covered products.  Under such agreements, the indirect customers independently select a wholesaler from which to purchase the products at these agreed-upon prices.  We will provide credit to the wholesaler for the difference between the agreed-upon price with the indirect customer and the wholesaler’s invoice price.  This credit is called a “chargeback.”  For more information on chargebacks, see the section entitled “Critical Accounting Policies” in Item 7, “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” of this Form 10-K.  These indirect sale transactions are recorded on our books as sales to wholesale customers.

We promote our products through direct sales, trade shows and group purchasing organizations’ bidding processes.  We also market our products through private label arrangements, under which we manufacture our products with a label containing the name and logo of our customer.  This practice is commonly referred to as “private label.”  Private label allows us to leverage our internal sales efforts by using the marketing services from other well-respected pharmaceutical competitors.  The focus of our sales efforts is the relationships we create with our customer accounts.

Strong and dependable customer relationships have created a positive platform for us to increase our sales volumes.  Historically and in fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015, our advertising expenses were immaterial.  When our sales representatives make contact with a customer, we will generally offer to supply the customer our products at fixed prices.  If accepted, the customer’s purchasing department will coordinate the purchase, receipt and distribution of the products throughout its distribution centers and retail outlets.  Once a customer accepts our supply of a product, the customer typically expects a high standard of service, including timely receipt of products ordered, availability of convenient, user-friendly and effective customer service functions and maintaining open lines of communication.

We believe that retail-level consumer demand dictates the total volume of sales for various products.  In the event that wholesale and retail customers adjust their purchasing volumes, we believe that consumer demand will be fulfilled by other wholesale or retail sources of supply.  As a result, we attempt to develop and maintain strong relationships with most of the major retail chains, wholesale distributors and mail-order pharmacies in order to facilitate the supply of our products through whatever channel the consumer prefers.  Although we have agreements with customers governing the transaction terms of our sales, generally there are no minimum purchase quantities applicable to these agreements.

Competition

The manufacturing and distribution of generic pharmaceutical products is a highly competitive industry.  Competition is based primarily on price.  In addition to competitive pricing, our competitive advantages are our ability to provide strong and dependable customer service by maintaining adequate inventory levels, employing a responsive order filling system and prioritizing timely fulfillment of orders.  We ensure that our products are available from national wholesale, chain drug and mail-order suppliers as well as our own warehouse.  The modernization of our facilities, hiring of experienced staff and implementation of inventory and quality control programs have improved our competitive cost position.

14

Table of Contents

We compete with other manufacturers and marketers of generic and brand-name drugs.  Each product manufactured and/or sold by us has a different set of competitors.  The list below identifies the companies with which we primarily compete with respect to each of our major products:

Government Regulation

Pharmaceutical manufacturers are subject to extensive regulation by the federal government, principally by the FDA and, in cases of controlled substance products the DEA and to a lesser extent by other federal regulatory bodies and state governments.  The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (the “FDCA”), the Controlled Substance Act (the “CSA”) and other federal statutes and regulations govern or influence the testing, manufacture, safety, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, pricing, advertising and promotion of our generic drug products.  Non-compliance with applicable regulations can result in fines, product recalls and seizure of products, total or partial suspension of production, personal and/or corporate prosecution and debarment and refusal of the government to approve new drug applications.  The FDA also has the authority to revoke previously approved drug applications after a hearing.

Generally, FDA approval is required before a prescription drug can be marketed.  A new drug is one not generally recognized by qualified experts as safe and effective for its intended use.  New drugs are typically developed and submitted to the FDA by companies expecting to brand the product and sell it.  The FDA review process for new drugs is very extensive and requires a substantial investment to research and test the drug candidate.  However, less burdensome approval procedures are generally used for generic equivalents.  Typically, the investment required to develop a generic drug is less costly than the innovator drug.

There are currently three ways to obtain FDA approval of a drug:

·                  New Drug Applications (NDA): Unless one of the two procedures discussed in the following sections is available, a manufacturer must conduct and submit to the FDA complete clinical studies to establish a drug’s safety and efficacy.  The new drug approval process generally involves:

·                  completion of preclinical laboratory and animal testing in compliance with the FDA’s GLP regulations;

·                  submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug (“IND”) application for human clinical testing, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin;

·                  performance of adequate and well-controlled human clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the proposed drug product for each intended use;

15

Table of Contents

·                  satisfactory completion of an FDA pre-approval inspection of the facility or facilities at which the product is produced to assess compliance with the FDA’s cGMP regulations; and

·                  submission to and approval by the FDA of an NDA.

The results of preclinical tests, together with manufacturing information and analytical data, are submitted to the FDA as part of an IND, which must become effective before human clinical trials may begin.  Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent Institutional Review Board.  Human clinical trials are typically conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap.  These phases generally include:

·                  Phase I, during which the drug is introduced into healthy human subjects or, on occasion, patients and is tested for safety, stability, dose tolerance and metabolism;

·                  Phase II, during which the drug is introduced into a limited patient population to determine the efficacy of the product in specific targeted indications, to determine dosage tolerance and optimal dosage and to identify possible adverse effects and safety risks; and

·                  Phase III, during which the clinical trial is expanded to a larger and more diverse patient group at geographically dispersed clinical trial sites to further evaluate clinical efficacy, optimal dosage and safety.

The drug sponsor, the FDA, or the independent Institutional Review Board at each institution at which a clinical trial is being performed may suspend a clinical trial at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the subjects are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

The results of preclinical animal studies and human clinical studies, together with other detailed information, are submitted to the FDA as part of the NDA.  The NDA also must contain extensive manufacturing information.  The FDA may disapprove the NDA if applicable FDA regulatory criteria are not satisfied or it may require additional clinical data.  Once approved, the FDA may withdraw the product approval if compliance with pre- and post-market regulatory standards is not maintained or if problems occur or are identified after the product reaches the marketplace.  In addition, the FDA may require post-marketing studies to monitor the effect of approved products and may limit further marketing of the product based on the results of these post-marketing studies.

The FDA has broad post-market regulatory and enforcement powers, including the ability to levy fines and civil penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products and withdraw approvals.

Satisfaction of FDA new drug approval requirements typically takes several years and the actual time required may vary substantially based upon the type, complexity and novelty of the product or disease.  Government regulation may delay or prevent marketing of potential products for a considerable period of time and/or require additional procedures which increase manufacturing costs.  Success in early stage clinical trials does not assure success in later stage clinical trials.  Data obtained from clinical activities is not always conclusive and may be subject to varying interpretations that could delay, limit, or prevent regulatory approval.  Even if a product receives regulatory approval, later discovery of previously unknown problems with a product may result in restrictions on the product or even complete withdrawal of the product from the market.

·                  Abbreviated New Drug Applications: An ANDA is similar to an NDA except that the FDA generally waives the requirement of complete clinical studies of safety and efficacy.  However, it may require bioavailability and bioequivalence studies.  Bioavailability indicates the rate of absorption and levels of concentration of a drug in the bloodstream needed to produce a therapeutic effect.  Bioequivalence compares one drug product with another and indicates if the rate of absorption and the levels of concentration of a generic drug in the body are within prescribed statistical limits to those of a previously approved drug.  Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, an ANDA may be submitted for a drug on the basis that it is the equivalent of an approved drug regardless of when such other drug was approved.  The FDA will approve the generic product as suitable for an ANDA application if it finds that the generic product does not raise new questions of safety and effectiveness as compared to the innovator product.  A product is not eligible for ANDA approval if the FDA determines that it is not equivalent to the referenced innovator drug, if it is intended for a different use, or if it is not subject to an approved Suitability Petition.  However, such a product might be approved under an NDA, with supportive data from clinical trials.

In addition to establishing a new ANDA procedure, the Hatch-Waxman Act created statutory protections for approved brand-name drugs.  Under the Hatch-Waxman Act, an ANDA for a generic drug may not be made effective until all relevant product and use patents for the brand-name drug have expired or have been determined to be invalid.  Prior to this act, the FDA gave no consideration to the patent status of a previously approved drug. 

16

Table of Contents

Upon NDA approval, the FDA lists in its Orange Book the approved drug product and any patents identified by the NDA applicant that relate to the drug product.  Any applicant who files an ANDA seeking approval of a generic equivalent version of a drug listed in the FDA’s Orange Book before expiration of the referenced patent(s), must certify to the FDA that (1) no patent information on the drug product that is the subject of the ANDA has been submitted to the FDA; (2) such patent has expired; (3) the date on which such patent expires; or (4) such patent is invalid or will not be infringed upon by the manufacture, use, or sale of the drug product for which the ANDA is submitted. This last certification is known as a paragraph IV certification.  A notice of the paragraph IV certification must be provided to each owner of the patent that is the subject of the certification and to the holder of the approved NDA to which the ANDA refers.  Before the enactment of the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003 (the “MMA”), which amended the Hatch-Waxman Act, if the NDA holder or patent owner(s) asserted a patent challenge within 45 days of its receipt of the certification notice, the FDA was prevented from approving that ANDA until the earlier of 30 months from the receipt of the notice of the paragraph IV certification, the expiration of the patent, when the infringement case concerning each such patent was favorably decided in an ANDA applicant’s favor, or such shorter or longer period as may be ordered by a court. This prohibition is generally referred to as the 30-month stay.  In some cases, NDA owners and patent holders have obtained additional patents for their products after an ANDA had been filed but before that ANDA received final marketing approval and then initiated a new patent challenge, which resulted in more than one 30-month stay.  The MMA amended the Hatch-Waxman Act to eliminate certain unfair advantages of patent holders in the implementation of the Hatch-Waxman Act.  As a result, the NDA owner remains entitled to an automatic 30-month stay if it initiates a patent infringement lawsuit within 45 days of its receipt of notice of a paragraph IV certification, but only if the patent infringement lawsuit is directed to patents that were listed in the FDA’s Orange Book before the ANDA was filed.  An ANDA applicant is now permitted to take legal action to enjoin or prohibit the listing of certain of these patents as a counterclaim in response to a claim by the NDA owner that its patent covers its approved drug product.

As of June 30, 2017, we have 9 paragraph IV certifications pending with the FDA.  Three of the P-IV certifications are currently being challenged.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to the Zomig® nasal spray product, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca UK Limited and Impax Laboratories, Inc. filed two patent infringement complaints against the Company in July 2014.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to Thalomid®, Celgene Corporation and Children’s Medical Center Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in January 2015.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to Suprep®, Braintree Laboratories, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in March 2017.  Refer to Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies” for further information on the current status of the aforementioned P-IV challenges.

If an ANDA applicant is the first-to-file a substantially complete ANDA with a paragraph IV certification and provides appropriate notice to the FDA, the NDA holder and all patent owner(s) for a particular generic product, the applicant may be awarded a 180-day period of marketing exclusivity against other companies that subsequently file ANDAs for that same product.  A substantially complete ANDA is one that contains all the information required by the Hatch-Waxman Act and the FDA’s regulations, including the results of any required bioequivalence studies.  The FDA may refuse to accept the filing of an ANDA that is not substantially complete or may determine during substantive review of the ANDA that additional information, such as an additional bioequivalence study, is required to support approval.

Such a determination may affect an applicant’s first-to-file status and eligibility for a 180-day period of marketing exclusivity for the generic product.  The MMA also modified the rules governing when the 180-day marketing exclusivity period is triggered or forfeited and shared.  Prior to the legislation, the 180-day marketing exclusivity period was triggered upon the first commercial marketing of the ANDA or a court decision holding the patent invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.  For ANDAs accepted for filing before March 2000, that court decision had to be final and non-appealable (other than a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari).  In March 2000, the FDA changed its position in response to two court cases that challenged the FDA’s original interpretation of what constituted a court decision under the Hatch-Waxman Act.  Under the changed policy, the 180-day marketing exclusivity period began running immediately upon a district court decision holding the patent at issue invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed, regardless of whether the ANDA had been approved and the generic product had been marketed.  In codifying the FDA’s original policy, the MMA retroactively applies a final and non-appealable court decision trigger for all ANDAs filed before December 8, 2003 leaving intact the first commercial marketing trigger.  As for ANDAs filed after December 8, 2003, the marketing exclusivity period is only triggered upon the first commercial marketing of the ANDA product, but that exclusivity may be forfeited under certain circumstances, including, if the ANDA is not marketed within 75 days after a final and non-appealable court decision by the first-to-file or other ANDA applicant, or if the FDA does not tentatively approve the first-to-file applicant’s ANDA within 30 months.

In addition to patent exclusivity, the holder of the NDA for the listed drug may be entitled to a period of non-patent market exclusivity, during which the FDA cannot approve an ANDA.  If the listed drug is a new chemical entity (“NCE”), the FDA may not accept an ANDA for a bioequivalent product for up to five years following approval of the NDA for the NCE. 

17

Table of Contents

If the listed drug is not a new chemical entity but the holder of the NDA conducted clinical trials essential to approval of the NDA or a supplement thereto, the FDA may not approve an ANDA for a bioequivalent product before expiration of three years.  Certain other periods of exclusivity may be available if the listed drug is indicated for treatment of a rare disease or is studied for pediatric indications.

·                  Section 505(b)(2) New Drug Applications: For a drug that is identical to a previously approved drug, a prospective manufacturer need not go through the full NDA procedure.  Instead, it may demonstrate safety and efficacy by relying on published literature and reports where at least some of information required for approval comes from studies not conducted by or for the applicant and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference.  The Hatch-Waxman Act permits the applicant to rely upon certain preclinical or clinical studies conducted for an approved product.  The manufacturer must also submit, if the FDA so requires, bioavailability or bioequivalence data illustrating that the generic drug formulation produces the same effects, within an acceptable range, as the previously approved innovator drug.  Because published literature to support the safety and efficacy of post-1962 drugs may not be available, this procedure is of limited utility to generic drug manufacturers and the resulting approved product will not be interchangeable with the innovator drug as an ANDA drug would be unless bioequivalency testing were undertaken and approved by FDA.  Moreover, the utility of Section 505(b)(2) applications have with the exception of “Grandfathered drugs”  been diminished by the availability of the ANDA process, as described above.

Additionally, certain products marketed prior to the FDCA may be considered GRASE (“Generally Recognized As Safe and Effective”) or Grandfathered.  GRASE products are those “old drugs that do not require prior approval from FDA in order to be marketed because they are generally recognized as safe and effective based on published scientific literature.”  Similarly, Grandfathered products are those which “entered the market before the passage of the 1938 act or the 1962 amendments to the act.”  Under the grandfather clause, such a product is exempted from the “effectiveness requirements [of the act] if its composition and labeling have not changed since 1962 and if, on the day before the 1962 amendments became effective, it was (1) used or sold commercially in the United States, (2) not a new drug as defined by the act at that time and (3) not covered by an effective application.”

Manufacturing cGMP Requirements

Among the requirements for a new drug approval, a company’s manufacturing methods must conform to FDA cGMP regulations before a facility may be used to manufacture a product.  The FDA performs pre-approval inspections to assess a company’s manufacturing methods as part of a new drug approval process.  These inspections include reviews of procedures and operations used in the manufacture and testing of our products to assess compliance with application regulations.  The cGMP regulations must be followed at all times during which the approved drug is manufactured and the manufacturing facilities are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA and other authorities.  FDA’s cGMP regulations require, among other things, quality control and quality assurance as well as the corresponding maintenance of records and documentation.  In complying with the standards set forth in the cGMP regulations, we must continue to expend time, money and effort in the areas of production and quality control to ensure full technical compliance.

Failure to comply with statutory and regulatory requirements subject a manufacturer to possible legal or regulatory action, including but not limited to, the seizure or recall of non-complying drug products, injunctions, consent decrees placing significant restrictions on or suspending manufacturing operations and/or civil and criminal penalties.  Adverse experiences with the product must be reported to the FDA and could result in the imposition of market restriction through labeling changes or in product removal.  Product approvals may be withdrawn if compliance with regulatory requirements is not maintained or if problems concerning safety or efficacy of the product occur following approval.

Other Regulatory Requirements

With respect to post-market product advertising and promotion, the FDA imposes a number of complex regulations on entities that advertise and promote pharmaceuticals, which include, among others, standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, off-label promotion, industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities and promotional activities involving the internet.  The FDA has very broad enforcement authority under the FDCA and failure to abide by these regulations can result in penalties, including the issuance of a warning letter directing entities to correct deviations from FDA standards, a requirement that future advertising and promotional materials be pre-cleared by the FDA and state and/or federal civil and criminal investigations and prosecutions.

We are also subject to various laws and regulations regarding laboratory practices, the experimental use of animals and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances in connection with our research.  In each of these areas, as above, the FDA has broad regulatory and enforcement powers, including the ability to levy fines and civil penalties, suspend or delay issuance of approvals, seize or recall products and withdraw approvals. 

18

Table of Contents

Any one or a combination of FDA regulatory or enforcement actions against the Company could have a material adverse effect on our financial results.

DEA Regulation

We maintain registrations with the DEA that enable us to receive, manufacture, store and distribute controlled substances in connection with our operations.  Controlled substances are those drugs that appear on one of five schedules promulgated and administered by the DEA under the CSA.  The CSA governs, among other things, the distribution, recordkeeping, handling, security and disposal of controlled substances.  We are subject to periodic and ongoing inspections by the DEA and similar state drug enforcement authorities to assess our ongoing compliance with the DEA’s regulations.  Any failure to comply with these regulations could lead to a variety of sanctions, including the revocation or a denial of renewal of our DEA registration, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties.

Fraud and Abuse Laws

Because of the significant federal funding involved in Medicare and Medicaid, Congress and state legislatures have enacted and actively enforce, a number of laws whose purpose is to eliminate fraud and abuse in federal health care programs.  Our business is subject to compliance with these laws, such as Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, Dodd-Frank and the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”).

Anti-Kickback Statutes, Sunshine Act and Federal False Claims Act

The federal health care programs fraud and abuse law (sometimes referred to as the “Anti-Kickback Statue”) prohibits persons from knowingly and willfully soliciting, offering, receiving, or providing remuneration, directly or indirectly, in exchange for or to induce either the referral of an individual, or the furnishing or arranging for a good or service, for which payment may be made under a federal health care program such as Medicare or Medicaid.  The definition of “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including for example gifts, certain discounts, the furnishing of free supplies, equipment or services, credit arrangements, payment of cash and waivers of payments.  Several courts have interpreted the statute’s intent requirement to mean that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal health care covered business, the statute has been violated.  Penalties for violations include criminal penalties and civil sanctions such as fines, imprisonment and possible exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care programs.  In addition, some kickback allegations have been claimed to violate the Federal False Claims Act, discussed in more detail below.

The Anti-Kickback Statute is broad and prohibits many arrangements and practices that are lawful in businesses outside of the health care industry.  Recognizing that the Anti-Kickback Statute is broad and may technically prohibit many innocuous or beneficial arrangements, Congress authorized the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) to issue a series of regulations, known as “safe harbors.”  These safe harbors, issued by the OIG beginning in July 1991, set forth provisions that, if all their applicable requirements are met, will assure health care providers and other parties that they will not be prosecuted under the Anti-Kickback Statute.  The failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit precisely within one or more safe harbors does not necessarily mean that it is illegal or that prosecution will be pursued.

However, conduct and business arrangements that do not fully satisfy each applicable safe harbor may result in increased scrutiny by government enforcement authorities such as OIG.

Many states have adopted laws similar to the Anti-Kickback Statute.  Some of these state prohibitions apply to referral of patients for health care items or services reimbursed by any source, not only the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Government officials have focused their enforcement efforts on marketing of health care services and products, among other activities and recently have brought cases against companies and certain sales, marketing and executive personnel, for allegedly offering unlawful inducements to potential or existing customers in an attempt to procure their business.

Another development affecting the health care industry is the increased use of the Federal False Claims Act (“FFCA”) and in particular, action brought pursuant to the FFCA’s “Whistleblower” or “Qui Tam” provisions.  The FFCA imposes 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 health care program.  The Qui Tam provisions of the FFCA allow a private individual to bring actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government and to share in any monetary recovery.  In recent years, the number of suits brought against health care providers by private individuals has increased dramatically.  In addition, various states have enacted false claims law analogous to the FFCA, although many of these state laws apply where a claim is submitted to any third-party payer and not merely a federal health care program.

19

Table of Contents

When an entity is determined to have violated the FFCA, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus civil penalties.  Liability arises, primarily, when an entity knowingly submits or causes another to submit a false claim for reimbursement to the federal government.  The federal government has used the FFCA to assert liability on the basis of inadequate care, kickbacks and other improper referrals and improper use of Medicare numbers when detailing the provider of services, in addition to the more predictable allegations as to misrepresentations with respect to the services rendered.  In addition, the federal government has prosecuted companies under the FFCA in connection with off-label promotion of products.  Our future activities relating to the reporting of wholesale or estimated retail prices of our products, the reporting of discount and rebate information and other information affecting federal, state and third-party reimbursement of our products and the sale and marketing of our products may be subject to scrutiny under these laws.  We are unable to predict whether we will be subject to actions under the FFCA or a similar state law, or the impact of such actions.  However, the costs of defending such claims, as well as any sanctions imposed, could significantly affect our financial performance.

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977, as amended (“FCPA”), was enacted for the purpose of making it unlawful for certain classes of persons and entities to make payments to foreign government officials to assist in obtaining or retaining business.  Specifically, the anti-bribery provisions of the FCPA prohibit the bribery of government officials.

HIPAA and Other Fraud and Privacy Regulations

The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) created two new federal crimes: health care fraud and false statements relating to health care matters.  The HIPAA health care fraud statute prohibits, among other things, knowing and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payors.  A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion from government-sponsored programs.  The HIPAA false statements statute prohibits knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing, or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services.  A violation of this statute is a felony and may result in fines and/or imprisonment.

Pricing

In the United States, our sales are dependent upon the availability of coverage and reimbursement for our products from third-party payors, including federal and state programs such as Medicare and Medicaid and private organizations such as commercial health insurance and managed care companies.  Such third-party payors increasingly challenge the price of medical products and services and instituting cost containment measures to control or significantly influence the purchase of medical products and services.

Over the past several years, the rising costs of providing health care services has triggered legislation to make certain changes to the way in which pharmaceuticals are covered and reimbursed, particularly by government programs.  For instance, recent federal legislation and regulations have created a voluntary prescription drug benefit, Medicare Part D, which revised the formula used to reimburse health care providers and physicians under Medicare Part B and imposed significant revisions to the Medicaid Drug Rebate Program.  These changes have resulted in and may continue to result in, coverage and reimbursement restrictions and increased rebate obligations by manufacturers.

In addition, there continues to be legislative and regulatory proposals at the federal and state levels directed at containing or lowering the cost of health care.  Examples of how limits on drug coverage and reimbursement in the United States may cause reduced payments for drugs in the future include:

·                  changing Medicare reimbursement methodologies;

·                  revising drug rebate calculations under the Medicaid program;

·                  reforming drug importation laws;

·                  fluctuating decisions on which drugs to include in formularies; and

·                  requiring pre-approval of coverage for new or innovative drug therapies.

20

Table of Contents

We cannot predict the likelihood or pace of such additional changes or whether there will be significant legislative or regulatory reform impacting our products, nor can we predict with precision what effect such governmental measures would have if they were ultimately enacted into law.  However, in general, we believe that legislative and regulatory reform activity likely will continue.

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, results of operations and financial condition. Further, generic pharmaceutical drug prices have been the focus of increased scrutiny by certain states’ attorney generals, the U.S. Department of Justice and Congress. Decreases in health care reimbursements or prices of our prescription drugs could limit our ability to sell our products or decrease our revenues, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The Company believes that under the current regulatory environment, the generic pharmaceutical industry as a whole will be the target of increased governmental scrutiny, especially with respect to state and federal anti-trust and price fixing claims.

In July 2014, the Company and at least one of its competitors each received a subpoena and interrogatories from the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office concerning its investigation into the pricing of Digoxin.  In June 2016, the Connecticut Attorney General issued interrogatories and a subpoena to an employee of the Company.  The Company maintains that it acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and continues to cooperate with the Connecticut Attorney General’s investigation.

In Fiscal 2015 and Fiscal 2016, the Company and certain affiliated individuals each were served with a grand jury subpoena relating to a federal investigation of the generic pharmaceutical industry into possible violations of the Sherman Act.  The subpoenas request corporate documents of the Company relating to corporate, financial and employee information, communications or correspondence with competitors regarding the sale of generic prescription medications and the marketing, sale, or pricing of certain products, generally for the period of 2005 through the dates of the subpoenas.  Based on reviews performed to date by outside counsel, the Company currently believes that it has acted in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations and continues to cooperate with the federal investigation.

EPA Violation Notice

On July 13, 2017, the United States Department of Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) sent a Finding of Violation to KUPI alleging several violations of national emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants at KUPI’s Seymour, Indiana facility.  The EPA is giving the company the opportunity to discuss the matter with the agency before filing a formal complaint or assessing fines with respect to the alleged violations.  The Company is conducting an investigation into the matter and cannot reasonably predict the outcome of any potential EPA action at this time.

Other Applicable Laws

We are also subject to federal, state and local laws of general applicability, including laws regulating working conditions and the storage, transportation, or discharge of items that may be considered hazardous substances, hazardous waste, or environmental contaminants.  We monitor our compliance with laws and we believe we are in substantial compliance with all regulatory bodies.

As a publicly-traded company, we are also subject to significant regulations and laws, included in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.  Since its enactment, we have developed and instituted a corporate compliance program based on what we believe are the current best practices and we continue to update the program in response to newly implemented or changing regulatory requirements.

Employees

As of June 30, 2017, we had 1,126 employees.

Securities and Exchange Act Reports

We maintain a website at www.lannett.com.  We make available on or through our website our current and periodic reports, including any amendments to those reports, that are filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) in accordance with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”).  These reports include annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.  This information is available on our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the information with, or furnish it to, the SEC. 

21

Table of Contents

The contents of our website are not incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K and shall not be deemed “filed” under the Exchange Act.

ITEM 1A.             RISK FACTORS

General Risks Relating to the Company

We materially rely on an uninterrupted supply of finished products from JSP for a significant amount of our sales.  If we were to experience an interruption of that supply, our operating results would suffer.

In fiscal year 2017, 30% of our total net sales consists of distributed products manufactured by JSP.  Two of these products are Levothyroxine Sodium and Digoxin, which accounted for 27% and 2%, respectively, of our Fiscal 2017 total net sales and 30% and 4%, respectively, of our total net sales for Fiscal 2016.  On August 19, 2013, the Company entered into an agreement with JSP to extend its initial contract to continue as the exclusive distributor in the United States of three JSP products: Butalbital, Aspirin, Caffeine with Codeine Phosphate Capsules USP; Digoxin Tablets USP; and Levothyroxine Sodium Tablets USP.  The amendment to the original agreement extended the initial contract, which was due to expire on March 22, 2014, for five years through March 23, 2019.  Both Lannett and JSP have the right to terminate the contract if one of the parties does not cure a material breach of the contract within thirty (30) days of notice from the non-breaching party.  If the supply of these products is interrupted in any way by any form of temporary or permanent business interruption to JSP, including but not limited to fire or other naturally-occurring, damaging event to their physical plant and/or equipment, condemnation of their facility, legislative or regulatory cease and desist declaration regarding their operations, FDA action or any interruption in their source of API for their products, our operating results could be materially adversely affected.  We do not have, at this time, a second source for these products.

Our gross profit may fluctuate from period to period depending upon our product sales mix, our product pricing and our costs to manufacture or purchase products.

Our future results of operations, financial condition and cash flows depend to a significant extent upon our product sales mix.  Sales of certain products that we manufacture tend to create higher gross margins than the products we purchase and resell.  As a result, our sales mix will significantly impact our gross profit from period to period.

Factors that may cause our sales mix to vary include:

·the number of new product introductions;

·marketing exclusivity, if any, which may be obtained on certain new products;

·the level of competition in the marketplace for certain products;

·the availability of raw materials and finished products from our suppliers; and

·the scope and outcome of governmental regulatory action that may involve us.

The Company is continuously seeking to keep product costs low, however there can be no guarantee that gross profit percentages will stay consistent in future periods. Pricing pressure from competitors, changes in product mix and the costs of producing or purchasing new drugs may also fluctuate in future periods.

Acquisitions could result in operating difficulties, dilution and other harmful consequences that may adversely impact our business and results of operations.

Acquisitions are an important element of our overall corporate strategy and use of capital.  These transactions could be material to our financial condition and results of operations.  We also expect to continue to evaluate and enter into discussions regarding a wide array of potential strategic transactions.  We may compete for certain acquisition targets with companies having greater financial resources than us or other advantages over us that may hinder or prevent us from acquiring a target company or completing another transaction, which could also result in significant diversion of management time, as well as substantial out-of-pocket costs.  The process of integrating an acquired company, business, or technology may create unforeseen operating difficulties and expenditures.  The areas where we may face risks include but are not limited to (i) diversion of management time and focus from operating our business to acquisition integration challenges, (ii) implementation or remediation of controls, procedures and policies at the acquired company, (iii) integration of the acquired company’s accounting, human resource and other administrative systems and coordination of product, engineering and sales and marketing functions, (iv) transition of operations, users and customers onto our existing platforms, (v) failure to obtain required approvals from governmental authorities under competition and antitrust laws on a timely basis, if at all, which could, among other things, delay or prevent us from completing a transaction, or otherwise restrict our ability to realize the expected financial or strategic goals of an acquisition, (vi) cultural challenges associated with integrating employees from the acquired company into our organization and retention of employees from the businesses we acquire and (vii) liability for activities of the acquired company before the acquisition, including infringement claims, violations of laws, commercial disputes, tax liabilities, claims from current and former employees and customers and other known and unknown liabilities.

22

Table of Contents

Our failure to address these risks or other problems encountered in connection with our past or future acquisitions could cause us to fail to realize the anticipated benefits of such acquisitions, incur unanticipated liabilities and harm our business generally.  Future acquisitions could also result in dilutive issuances of our equity securities, the incurrence of debt, contingent liabilities, or amortization expenses, or write-offs of goodwill, any of which could harm our financial condition.  Also, the anticipated benefit of many of our acquisitions may not materialize.

We have been and may continue to be adversely affected by increased governmental rebates with respect to matters relating to the pricing of our products and we may experience pricing pressure on the price of certain of our products due to competitive pressure to lower the cost of drugs, which could reduce our revenue and future profitability.

There has been increased press coverage and increased scrutiny from regulatory and enforcement agencies and legislative bodies with respect to matters relating to the pricing of generic pharmaceuticals, including publicity and pressure resulting from prices charged by our competitors. We have experienced and may continue to experience downward pricing pressure on the price of our products due to competitive pressure to lower the cost of drugs to the ultimate consumer, which could reduce our revenue and future profitability.  This increased press coverage and public scrutiny have resulted in, and may continue to result in, investigations, and calls for investigations, by governmental agencies at both the federal and state level and have resulted in, and may continue to result in, claims brought against us by private parties or by regulators taking other measures that could have a negative effect on our business.  For a description of current and federal and state investigations and claims by private parties, see Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies”.  Additional actions are possible.  It is not possible at this time to predict the ultimate outcome of any such investigations or claims or what other investigations or lawsuits or regulatory responses may result from such assertions, or their impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and/or ordinary share price.  Any such investigation or claim could also result in reputational harm and reduced market acceptance and demand for our products, could harm our ability to market our products in the future, could cause us to incur significant expense, could cause our senior management to be distracted from execution of our business strategy, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and growth prospects.  Accompanying the press and media coverage of pharmaceutical pricing practices and public complaints about the same, there has been increasing U.S. federal and state legislative and enforcement interest with respect to drug pricing.  In recent years, both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have conducted numerous hearings with respect to pharmaceutical drug pricing practices, including in connection with the investigation of specific price increases by pharmaceutical companies.  In addition to the effects of any investigations or claims brought against us described above, our revenue and future profitability could also be negatively affected if any such inquiries, of us or of other pharmaceutical companies or the industry more generally, were to result in legislative or regulatory proposals that limit our ability to increase the prices of our products.  Any of the events or developments described above could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition or results of operations, as well as on our reputation.

The generic pharmaceutical industry is highly competitive.

We face strong competition in our generic product business.  Revenues and gross profit derived from the sales of generic pharmaceutical products tend to follow a pattern based on certain regulatory and competitive factors.  As patents for brand-name products and related exclusivity periods expire or fall under patent challenges, the first generic manufacturer to receive regulatory approval for generic equivalents of such products is generally able to achieve significant market penetration.  As competing off-patent manufacturers receive regulatory approvals on similar products or as brand manufacturers launch generic versions of such products (for which no separate regulatory approval is required), market share, revenues and gross profit typically decline, in some cases dramatically.  Accordingly, the level of market share, revenue and gross profit attributable to a particular generic product is normally related to the number of competitors in that product’s market and the timing of that product’s regulatory approval and launch, in relation to competing approvals and launches.  Consequently, we must continue to develop and introduce new products in a timely and cost-effective manner to maintain our revenues and gross margins.

Extensive industry regulation has had and will continue to have, a significant impact on our business in the area of cost of goods, especially our product development, manufacturing and distribution capabilities.

All pharmaceutical companies, including Lannett, are subject to extensive, complex, costly and evolving regulation by the federal government, including the FDA and, in the case of controlled drugs, the DEA and state government agencies.  The FDCA, the CSA and other federal statutes, regulations and guidances govern or influence the development, testing, manufacturing, packing, labeling, storing, record keeping, safety, approval, advertising, promotion, sale and distribution of our products.

23

Table of Contents

The process for obtaining governmental approval to manufacture and market pharmaceutical products is rigorous, time-consuming and costly and we cannot predict the extent to which we may be affected by legislative and regulatory developments.  We are dependent on receiving FDA and other governmental or third-party approvals prior to manufacturing, marketing and shipping our products.  The FDA approval process for a particular product candidate can take several years and requires us to dedicate substantial resources to complete all activities necessary to secure approvals and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for our product candidates in a timely manner, or at all.  In order to obtain approval for our generic product candidates, we must demonstrate that our drug product is therapeutically equivalent to a drug previously approved by the FDA through the drug approval process, known as the reference listed drug (“RLD”) or reference standard drug (“RS”).  Bioequivalency may be demonstrated in vivo or in vitro by comparing the generic product candidate to the innovator drug product in dosage form, strength, route of administration, quality, dissolution performance characteristics and intended use.  The FDA may not agree that the bioequivalence studies we submit in the ANDA applications for our generic drug products are adequate to support approval.  If it determines that an ANDA application is not adequate to support approval, the FDA could deny our application or request additional information, including new bioequivalence studies, which could delay approval of the product and impair our ability to compete with other versions of the generic drug product.

Consequently, there is always the chance that we will not obtain FDA or other necessary approvals, or that the rate, timing and cost of such approvals will adversely affect our product introduction plans or results of operations.  We carry inventories of certain products in anticipation of launch and if such products are not subsequently launched, we may be required to write-off the related inventory.  Furthermore, the FDA also has the authority to withdraw drug approvals previously granted after a hearing and require a firm to remove these products from the market for a variety of reasons, including a failure to comply with applicable regulations or the discovery of previously unknown safety problems with the product.

Additionally, certain products marketed prior to the FDCA may be considered GRASE or Grandfathered.  GRASE products are those “old drugs that do not require prior approval from FDA in order to be marketed because they are generally recognized as safe and effective based on published scientific literature.”  Similarly, Grandfathered products are those which “entered the market before the passage of the 1906 Act, 1938 Act or the 1962 amendments to the Act.”  Under the Grandfathered drug clause, such a product is exempted from the “effectiveness requirements [of the act] if its composition and labeling have not changed since 1962 and if, on the day before the 1962 amendments became effective, it was (1) used or sold commercially in the United States, (2) not a new drug as defined by the act at that time and (3) not covered by an effective application.”  Recently, the FDA has increased its efforts to force companies to file and seek FDA approval for Grandfathered products.  Efforts have included issuing notices to companies currently producing these products to cease its distribution of said products.  Lannett currently manufactures and markets one product that is considered a Grandfathered product, C-Topical® Solution.  The Company has completed the Phase III clinical trial and our CRO is assembling the data for our New Drug Application.

In addition, we, as well as our suppliers of distributed products and raw materials and contract manufacturing, laboratory and research organizations, are subject to periodic inspection of facilities by the FDA, the DEA and other authorities to confirm that firms are in compliance with all applicable regulations.  The FDA conducts pre-approval and post-approval reviews and plant inspections to determine whether systems and processes are in compliance with cGMP and other FDA regulations.  Following such inspections, the FDA may issue deficiencies noted during the inspection on Form 483.  A Form 483 notice is generally issued at the conclusion of a FDA inspection and lists conditions the FDA inspectors believe may violate cGMP or other FDA regulations.  If more serious violations are identified, the FDA may take additional action, such as issuing warning letters, import alerts, etc.  The DEA and comparable state-level agencies also heavily regulate the manufacturing, holding, processing, security, record-keeping and distribution of drugs that are considered controlled substances.  Some of the pain management products we manufacture contain controlled substances.  The DEA periodically inspects facilities for compliance with its rules and regulations.  If our manufacturing facilities or those of our suppliers fail to comply with applicable regulatory requirements, it could result in regulatory action and additional costs.

Our inability or the inability of our suppliers to comply with applicable FDA and other regulatory requirements can result in, among other things, delays in or denials of new product approvals, warning letters, import alerts, fines, consent decrees restricting or suspending manufacturing operations, injunctions, civil penalties, recall or seizure of products, total or partial suspension of sales and/or criminal prosecution.  Any of these or other regulatory actions could materially harm our operating results and financial condition.  Although we have instituted internal compliance programs, if these programs do not meet regulatory agency standards or if compliance is deemed deficient in any significant way, it could materially harm our business.  Additionally, if the FDA were to undertake additional enforcement activities with Lannett’s Grandfathered products, their actions could result in, among other things, removal of some of the product from the market, seizure of the product and total or partial suspension of sales.  Any of these regulatory actions could materially harm our operating results and financial condition.

24

Table of Contents

Our manufacturing operations as well as our suppliers’ manufacturing operations are subject to licensing by the FDA and/or DEA.  If we or our suppliers are unable to maintain the proper agency licensing arrangements, our operating results would be materially negatively impacted.

All of our manufacturing operations as well as those of our suppliers rely on maintaining active licenses to produce and develop generic drugs.  Specifically, our Cody Labs operations rely on a DEA license to directly import and convert raw concentrated poppy straw into several APIs or dosage forms.  This license is granted for a one year period and must be renewed successfully each year in order for us to maintain Cody Lab’s current operations and allow the Company to continue to work towards becoming a fully integrated narcotics supplier.  If the Company is unable to successfully renew its FDA and/or DEA licenses, the financial results of Lannett would be negatively impacted.

If we are unable to successfully develop or commercialize new products, our operating results will suffer.

Our future results of operations will depend to a significant extent upon our ability to successfully commercialize new generic products in a timely manner.  There are numerous difficulties in developing and commercializing new products, including:

·developing, testing and manufacturing products in compliance with regulatory standards in a timely manner;

·receiving requisite regulatory approvals for such products in a timely manner;

·the availability, on commercially reasonable terms, of raw materials, including APIs and other key ingredients;

·developing and commercializing a new product is time consuming, costly and subject to numerous factors that may delay or prevent the successful commercialization of new products; and

·commercializing generic products may be substantially delayed by the listing with the FDA of patents that have the effect of potentially delaying approval of the off-patent product by up to 30 months and in some cases, such patents have been issued and listed with the FDA after the key chemical patent on the brand drug product has expired or been litigated, causing additional delays in obtaining approval.

As a result of these and other difficulties, products currently in development by Lannett may or may not receive the regulatory approvals necessary for marketing.  If any of our products, when developed and approved, cannot be successfully or timely commercialized, our operating results could be adversely affected.  We cannot guarantee that any investment we make in developing products will be recouped, even if we are successful in commercializing those products.

The loss of key personnel could cause our business to suffer.

The success of our present and future operations will depend, to a significant extent, upon the experience, abilities and continued services of our key personnel.  If we lose the services of our key personnel, or if they are unable to devote sufficient attention to our operations for any other reason, our business may be significantly impaired.  If the employment of any of our current key personnel is terminated, we cannot assure you that we will be able to attract and replace the employee with the same caliber of key personnel.  As such, we have entered into employment agreements with all of our senior executive officers in order to help retain these key individuals.

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

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

·pursuing new patents for existing products which may be granted just before the expiration of one patent which could extend patent protection for additional years or otherwise delay the launch of generics;

·using the Citizen Petition process to request amendments to FDA standards;

·seeking changes to U.S. Pharmacopeia, an organization which publishes industry recognized compendia of drug standards;

25

Table of Contents

·attaching patent extension amendments to non-related federal legislation;

·engaging in state-by-state initiatives to enact legislation that restricts the substitution of some generic drugs, which could have an impact on products that we are developing;

·persuading regulatory bodies to withdraw the approval of brand-name drugs for which the patents are about to expire and converting the market to another product of the brand company on which longer patent protection exists;

·entering into agreements whereby other generic companies will begin to market an AG, a generic equivalent of a branded product, at the same time or after generic competition initially enters the market;

·filing suits for patent infringement and other claims that may delay or prevent regulatory approval, manufacture and/or scale of generic products; and,

·introducing “next-generation” products prior to the expiration of market exclusivity for the reference product, which often materially reduces the demand for the generic or the reference product for which we seek regulatory approval.

In the U.S., some pharmaceutical companies have lobbied Congress for amendments to the Hatch-Waxman Act 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, or if any other actions by our competitors and other third parties to prevent or delay activities necessary to the approval, manufacture, or distribution of our products are successful, our entry into the market and our ability to generate revenues associated with new products may be delayed, reduced, or eliminated, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or share price.

The generic pharmaceutical industry is characterized by intellectual property litigation and third parties may claim that we infringe on their proprietary rights which could result in litigation that could be costly, result in the diversion of management’s time and efforts, require us to pay damages or prevent us from marketing our existing or future products.

Our commercial success will depend in part on not infringing or violating the intellectual property rights of others. The manufacture, use and sale of new products that are the subject of conflicting patent rights have been the subject of substantial litigation in the pharmaceutical industry. These lawsuits relate to the validity and infringement of patents or proprietary rights of third parties. We may have to defend against charges that we violated patents or proprietary rights of third parties. This is especially true in the case of generic products on which the patent covering the brand product is expiring, an area where infringement litigation is prevalent and in the case of new brand products in which a competitor has obtained patents for similar products. Our competitors, some of which have substantially greater resources than we do and have made substantial intellectual property investments in competing technologies, may have applied for or obtained, or may in the future apply for and obtain, patent rights and other intellectual property that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use and sell our products. We may not be aware of whether our products do or will infringe existing or future patents or the intellectual property rights of others. In addition, patent applications can be pending for many years and may be confidential for a number of months after filing and because pending patent claims can be revised before issuance, there may be applications of others now pending of which we are unaware that may later result in issued patents that will prevent, limit or otherwise interfere with our ability to make, use or sell our products. Even if we prevail, litigation may be costly and time-consuming and could divert the attention of our management and technical personnel. Any potential intellectual property litigation also could force us to do one or more of the following:

·stop making, selling or using products or technologies that allegedly infringe the asserted intellectual property;

·lose the opportunity to license our technology to others or to collect royalty payments based upon successful protection and assertion of our intellectual property rights against others;

·incur significant legal expenses;

·pay substantial damages or royalties to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing;

·pay the attorney fees and costs of litigation to the party whose intellectual property rights we may be found to be infringing;

·redesign or rename, in the case of trademark claims, those products that contain the allegedly infringing intellectual property, which could be costly, disruptive and/or infeasible; or

26

Table of Contents

·attempt to obtain a license to the relevant intellectual property from third parties, which may not be available on reasonable terms or at all.

Any litigation or claim against us, even those without merit, may cause us to incur substantial costs and could place a significant strain on our financial resources, divert the attention of management from our core business and harm our reputation. For a description of intellectual property-related litigation matters, see Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies.”  If we are found to infringe the intellectual property rights of third parties, we could be required to pay substantial damages and/or substantial royalties and could be prevented from selling our products unless we obtain a license or are able to redesign our products to avoid infringement. If we fail to obtain any required licenses or make any necessary changes to our products or technologies, we may have to withdraw existing products from the market or may be unable to commercialize one or more of our products, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Although the parties to patent and intellectual property disputes in the pharmaceutical industry have often settled their disputes through licensing or similar arrangements, the costs associated with these arrangements may be substantial and could include ongoing royalties. Any such license may not be available on reasonable terms, if at all and there can be no assurance that we would be able to redesign our products in a way that would not infringe the intellectual property rights of others. Even if we were able to obtain rights to the third-party’s intellectual property, these rights may be non-exclusive, thereby giving our competitors access to the same intellectual property. As a result, an adverse determination in a judicial or administrative proceeding or failure to obtain necessary licenses could prevent us from manufacturing and selling a number of our products, or force us to redesign or rename our products to avoid infringing the intellectual property rights of third parties, which, even if it is possible to so redesign or rename our products, which could harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

If we are unable to obtain sufficient supplies from key suppliers that in some cases may be the only source of finished products or raw materials, our ability to deliver our products to the market may be impeded.

We are required to identify the supplier(s) of all the raw materials for our products in our applications with the FDA.  To the extent practicable, we attempt to identify more than one supplier in each drug application.  However, some products and raw materials are available only from a single source and, in some of our drug applications, only one supplier of products and raw materials has been identified, even in instances where multiple sources exist.  To the extent any difficulties experienced by our suppliers cannot be resolved within a reasonable time and at reasonable cost, or if raw materials for a particular product become unavailable from an approved supplier and we are required to qualify a new supplier with the FDA, our profit margins and market share for the affected product could decrease and our development and sales and marketing efforts could be delayed.

Our policies regarding returns, allowances and chargebacks and marketing programs adopted by wholesalers may reduce our revenues in future fiscal periods.

Based on industry practice, generic drug manufacturers have liberal return policies and have been willing to give customers post-sale inventory allowances.  Under these arrangements, from time to time we give our customers credits on our generic products that our customers hold in inventory after we have decreased the market prices of the same generic products due to competitive pricing.  Therefore, if new competitors enter the marketplace and significantly lower the prices of any of their competing products, we would likely reduce the price of our products.  As a result, we would likely be obligated to provide credits to our customers who are then holding inventories of such products, which could reduce sales revenue and gross margin for the period the credit is provided.  Like our competitors, we also give credits for chargebacks to wholesalers that have contracts with us for their sales to hospitals, group purchasing organizations, pharmacies or other customers.

A chargeback is the difference between the price the wholesaler pays and the price that the wholesaler’s end-customer pays for a product.  Although we establish reserves based on our prior experience and our best estimates of the impact that these policies may have in subsequent periods, we cannot ensure that our reserves are adequate or that actual product returns, allowances and chargebacks will not exceed our estimates.

Health care initiatives and other third-party payor cost-containment pressures have and could continue to cause us to sell our products at lower prices, resulting in decreased revenues.

Some of our products are purchased or reimbursed by state and federal government authorities, private health insurers and other organizations, such as health maintenance organizations, or HMOs and managed care organizations, or MCOs.  Third-party payors increasingly challenge pharmaceutical product pricing.  There also continues to be a trend toward managed health care in the United States.  Pricing pressures by third-party payors and the growth of organizations such as HMOs and MCOs could result in lower prices and a reduction in demand for our products.

27

Table of Contents

In addition, legislative and regulatory proposals and enactments to reform health care and government insurance programs could significantly influence the manner in which pharmaceutical products and medical devices are prescribed and purchased.  We expect there will continue to be federal and state laws and/or regulations, proposed and implemented, that could limit the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for health care products and services.  The extent to which future legislation or regulations, if any, relating to the health care industry or third-party coverage and reimbursement may be enacted or what effect such legislation or regulation would have on our business remains uncertain.  For example, the American Recovery and Reinstatement Act of 2009, also known as the Stimulus Package, includes $1.1 billion in funding to study the comparative effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies.  The Stimulus Package funding is expected to be used for, among other things, to conduct, support or synthesize research that compares and evaluates the risk and benefits, clinical outcomes, effectiveness and appropriateness of products.  Although Congress has indicated that this funding is intended for improvement in quality of health care, it remains unclear how the research will impact coverage, reimbursement or other third-party payor policies.  Such measures or other health care system reforms that are adopted could have a material adverse effect on our industry generally and our ability to successfully commercialize our products or could limit or eliminate our spending on development projects and affect our ultimate profitability.

We may need to change our business practices to comply with changes to fraud and abuse laws.

We are subject to various federal and state laws pertaining to health care fraud and abuse, including the Medicare and Medicaid Anti-Kickback Statute (the “Anti-Kickback Statute”), which apply to our sales and marketing practices and our relationships with physicians and other referral sources.  At the federal level, the Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits any person or entity from knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering, or paying any remuneration, including a bribe, kickback, or rebate, directly or indirectly, in return for or to induce the referral of patients for items or services covered by federal health care programs, or the furnishing, recommending, or arranging for products or services covered by federal health care programs.  Federal health care programs have been defined to include plans and programs that provide health benefits funded by the federal government, including Medicare and Medicaid, among others.  The definition of “remuneration” has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, including, for example, gifts, discounts, the furnishing of supplies or equipment, credit arrangements, payments of cash and waivers of payments.  Several courts have interpreted the federal Anti-Kickback Statute’s intent requirement to mean that if even one purpose in an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals or otherwise generate business involving goods or services reimbursed in whole or in part under federal health care programs, the statute has been violated.  The federal government has issued regulations, commonly known as safe harbors that set forth certain provisions which, if fully met, will assure parties that they will not be prosecuted under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.  The failure of a transaction or arrangement to fit within a specific safe harbor does not necessarily mean that the transaction or arrangement will be illegal or that prosecution under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute will be pursued, but such transactions or arrangements face an increased risk of scrutiny by government enforcement authorities and an ongoing risk of prosecution.  If our sales and marketing practices or our relationships with physicians are considered by federal or state enforcement authorities to be knowingly and willfully soliciting, receiving, offering, or providing any remuneration in exchange for arranging for or recommending our products and services and such activities do not fit within a safe harbor, then these arrangements could be challenged under the federal Anti-Kickback Statute.

If our operations are found to be in violation of the federal Anti-Kickback Statute we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties including fines of up to $25 thousand per violation, civil monetary penalties of up to $50 thousand per violation, assessments of up to three times the amount of the prohibited remuneration, imprisonment and exclusion from participating in the federal health care programs.  Violations of the Anti-Kickback Statute also may result in a finding of civil liability under the federal False Claims Act (as further discussed below) and the potential imposition of additional civil fines and monetary penalties that could be substantial.  In addition, HIPAA and its implementing regulations created two new federal crimes: health care fraud and false statements relating to health care matters.  The HIPAA health care fraud statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any health care benefit program, including private payors.  A violation of this statue is a felony and may result in fines, imprisonment and/or exclusion from government-sponsored programs.  The HIPAA false statements statute prohibits, among other things, knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation in connection with the delivery of or payment for health care benefits, items, or services.

A number of states also have anti-fraud and anti-kickback laws similar to the federal Anti-Kickback Statute that prohibit certain direct or indirect payments if such arrangements are designed to induce or encourage the referral of patients or the furnishing of goods or services.  Some states’ anti-fraud and anti-kickback laws apply only to goods and services covered by Medicaid.  Other states’ anti-fraud and anti-kickback laws apply to all health care goods and services, regardless of whether the source of payment is governmental or private.  Due to the breadth of these laws and the potential for changes in laws, regulations, or administrative or judicial interpretations, we may have to change our business practices or our existing business practices could be challenged as unlawful, which could materially adversely affect our business.

28

Table of Contents

Certain federal and state governmental agencies, including the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, have been investigating issues surrounding pricing information reported by drug manufacturers and used in the calculation of reimbursements as well as sales and marketing practices.  For example, many government and third-party payors, including Medicare and Medicaid, reimburse doctors and others for the purchase of certain pharmaceutical products based on the product’s AWP reported by pharmaceutical companies, although the Company has not used the term AWP since 2000.  The federal government, certain state agencies and private payors are investigating and have begun to file court actions related to pharmaceutical companies’ reporting practices with respect to AWP, alleging that the practice of reporting prices for pharmaceutical products has resulted in a false and overstated AWP, which in turn is alleged to have improperly inflated the reimbursement paid by Medicare beneficiaries, insurers, state Medicaid programs, medical plans and others to health care providers who prescribed and administered those products. In addition, some of these same payors are also alleging that companies are not reporting their “best price” to the states under the Medicaid program.

Furthermore, under the FDCA, it is illegal for pharmaceutical companies to promote their products for uses that are not approved by the FDA, and companies that market drugs for so-called “off-label” indications may be subject to civil liability under the federal False Claims Act (as further discussed below), as well as to criminal penalties.  Over the past decade, numerous lawsuits have been filed against pharmaceutical companies challenging their off-label promotional activities, and pharmaceutical companies, in the aggregate, have paid billions of dollars to defend and settle these cases.

We may become subject to federal and state false claims litigation brought by private individuals and the government.

We are subject to state and federal laws that govern the submission of claims for reimbursement.  The Federal False Claims Act (“FFCA”) imposes civil liability on individuals or entities that knowingly submit, or cause to be submitted, false or fraudulent claims for payment to the government.  Violations of the FFCA and other similar laws may result in criminal fines, imprisonment and substantial civil penalties for each false claim submitted (including civil penalties presently in excess of $21,000 per claim, plus treble damages, plus liability for attorney’s fees) and exclusion from federally funded health care programs, including Medicare and Medicaid.  The FFCA also allows private individuals to bring a suit on behalf of the government against an individual or entity for violations of the FFCA.  These suits, also known as Qui Tam or whistleblower actions, may be brought by, with only a few exceptions, any private citizen who has material information of a false claim that has not yet been previously disclosed.  These suits have increased significantly in recent years because the FFCA allows an individual to share in the amounts paid to the federal government in fines or settlement as a result of a successful Qui Tam action, in addition to the recovery of legal fees in bringing such an action.  If our past or present operations are found to be in violation of any of such laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to penalties, including civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, exclusion from federal health care programs and/or the curtailment or restructuring of our operations.  Any penalties, damages, fines, curtailment, or restructuring of our operations could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our financial results, action against us for violation of these laws, even if we successfully defend against them, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business.

Sales of our products may continue to be adversely affected by the continuing consolidation of our distribution network and the concentration of our customer base.

Our principal customers are wholesale drug distributors, major retail drug store chains and mail-order pharmacies.  These customers comprise a significant part of the distribution network for pharmaceutical products in the U.S.  This distribution network is continuing to undergo significant consolidation marked by mergers and acquisitions among wholesale distributors and the growth of large retail drug store chains.  As a result, a small number of large wholesale distributors control a significant share of the market and the number of independent drug stores and small drug store chains has decreased.  We expect that consolidation of drug wholesalers and retailers will increase pricing and other competitive pressures on drug manufacturers, including Lannett.

Our three largest customers accounted for 28%, 21% and 6%, respectively, of our total net sales for Fiscal 2017 and 25%, 16% and 7%, respectively, of our total net sales for Fiscal 2016.  The loss of any of these customers could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and our cash flows.  In addition, the Company generally does not enter into long-term supply agreements with its customers that would require them to purchase our products.

A relatively small group of products may represent a significant portion of our revenues, gross profit, or net earnings from time to time.

Sales of a limited number of our products from time to time represent a significant portion of our revenues, gross profit and net earnings.  For the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017, 2016 and 2015, our top five products in terms of sales, in the aggregate, represented approximately 53%, 57% and 78%, respectively, of our total net sales.  If the volume or pricing of our largest selling products decline in the future, our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and/or share price could be materially adversely affected.  See Item 1. Description of Business for more information on our top products.

29

Table of Contents

We are increasingly dependent on information technology and our systems and infrastructure face certain risks, including cybersecurity and data leakage risks.

Significant disruptions to our information technology systems or breaches of information security could adversely affect our business. We are increasingly dependent on information technology systems and infrastructure to operate our business. In the ordinary course of business, we collect, store and transmit large amounts of confidential information (including trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary business information and personal information) and it is critical that we do so in a secure manner to maintain the confidentiality and integrity of such confidential information. We could be susceptible to third-party attacks on our information technology systems, which attacks are of ever increasing levels of sophistication and are made by groups and individuals with a wide range of motives and expertise, including state and quasi-state actors, criminal groups, “hackers” and others. Maintaining the security, confidentiality and integrity of this confidential information (including trade secrets or other intellectual property, proprietary, business information and personal information) is important to our competitive business position. There can be no assurance that we can prevent service interruptions or security breaches in our systems or the unauthorized or inadvertent wrongful use or disclosure of confidential information that could adversely affect our business operations or result in the loss, misappropriation and/or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of, or the prevention of access to, confidential information. 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, or loss, misappropriation and/or unauthorized access, use or disclosure of confidential information could result in financial, legal, business and reputational harm to us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The design, development, manufacture and sale of our products involves the risk of product liability claims by consumers and other third parties and insurance against such potential claims is expensive and may be difficult to obtain.

The design, development, manufacture and sale of our products involve an inherent risk of product liability claims and the associated adverse publicity.  Insurance coverage is expensive and may be difficult to obtain and may not be available in the future on acceptable terms, or at all.  Although we currently maintain product liability insurance for our products in amounts we believe to be commercially reasonable, if the coverage limits of these insurance policies are not adequate, a claim brought against Lannett, whether covered by insurance or not, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Rising insurance costs, as well as the inability to obtain certain insurance coverage for risks faced by us, could negatively impact profitability.

The cost of insurance, including workers compensation, product liability and general liability insurance, has risen in recent years and may increase in the future.  In response, we may increase deductibles and/or decrease certain coverage to mitigate these costs.  These increases and our increased risk due to increased deductibles and reduced coverage, could have a negative impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Additionally, certain insurance coverage may not be available to us for risks faced by us.  Sometimes the coverage we obtain for certain risks may not be adequate to fully reimburse the amount of damage that we could possibly sustain.  Should either of these events occur, the lack of insurance to cover our entire cost would adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Federal regulation of arrangements between manufacturers of brand and generic products could adversely affect our business.

As part of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003, companies are now required to file with the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) and the Department of Justice certain types of agreements entered into between brand and generic pharmaceutical companies related to the manufacture, marketing and sale of generic versions of brand drugs.  This new requirement could affect the manner in which generic drug manufacturers resolve intellectual property litigation and other disputes with brand pharmaceutical companies and could result generally in an increase in private-party litigation against pharmaceutical companies or additional investigations or proceedings by the FTC or other governmental authorities.  The impact of this new requirement and the potential private-party lawsuits associated with arrangements between brand-name and generic drug manufacturers is uncertain and could adversely affect our business.

30

Table of Contents

If our goodwill or other intangible assets become impaired, we may be required to record a significant charge to earnings.

Under accounting principles generally accepted in the U.S. (“GAAP”), we review our goodwill and indefinite lived intangible assets for impairment at least annually and when there are changes in circumstances.  In the first quarter of Fiscal 2017, we recorded a $65.1 million impairment charge upon receiving notice from the FDA that it would seek to withdraw approval of the Company’s Methylphenidate ER ANDA.  In the second quarter of Fiscal 2017, we recorded a $23.0 million impairment charge related to an abandonment of a project within KUPI’s intellectual property research and development (“IPR&D”) portfolio.  We may be required to record additional significant charges to earnings in our financial statements during the period in which any impairment of our goodwill or indefinite lived intangible assets is determined, resulting in a negative effect on our results of operations.

We expend a significant amount of resources on research and development efforts that may not lead to successful product introductions.

We conduct R&D primarily to enable us to gain approval for, manufacture, and market pharmaceuticals in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. We also partner with third parties to develop products. 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 R&D efforts and are not able, ultimately, to introduce successful new and/or complex products as a result of those efforts, there could be a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows, and/or the price of our common stock.

Investigations of the calculation of average wholesale prices may adversely affect our business.

Many government and third-party payers, including Medicare, Medicaid, Health Maintenance Organization and Managed Care Organization, have historically reimbursed doctors, pharmacies and others for the purchase of certain prescription drugs based on a drug’s AWP or wholesale acquisition cost (“WAC”).  In the past several years, state and federal government agencies have conducted ongoing investigations of manufacturers’ reporting practices with respect to AWP and WAC, in which they have suggested that reporting of inflated AWP’s or WAC’s has led to excessive payments for prescription drugs.  For a description of current and federal and state investigations and claims by private parties, see Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies.”  Additional actions are possible.  These actions, if successful, could adversely affect us and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

The market price of our common stock has been volatile and may continue to be volatile in the future, and the value of any investment in our common stock could decline significantly.

The market price for our shares of common stock listed on the NYSE has fluctuated significantly from time to time, for example, varying between an intra-day high of $39.99 to an intra-day low of $16.75 during Fiscal 2017. The market price of our common stock is likely to continue to be volatile and subject to significant price and volume fluctuations in response to market, industry and other factors, including the risks described in this section.  Further, the stock market for pharmaceutical companies has recently experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of those companies.  In particular, recent negative publicity regarding pricing and price increases by pharmaceutical companies has negatively impacted, and may continue to negatively impact, the market for pharmaceutical companies.  These broad market and industry factors have negatively impacted, and in the future may seriously negatively impact, the market price of our common stock, regardless of our operating performance.  Our stock market price may also be dependent upon the valuations and recommendations of the analysts who cover our business.  If our results do not meet these analysts’ forecasts, the expectations of our investors or the financial guidance we provide to investors in any period, the market price of our common stock could decline.  In the past, following periods of volatility in the market or significant price decline, securities class-action litigation has often been instituted against companies and we have been subject to one such suit, as further described in Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies”.  Such suits could result in substantial costs and diversion of management’s attention and resources, which could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

31

Table of Contents

Risks Related to our Acquisition (the “Acquisition”) of Kremers Urban Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“KUPI”)

The integration of the Lannett business with the KUPI business may present significant challenges.

There is a significant degree of difficulty inherent in the process of integrating the Lannett and KUPI businesses. These difficulties include, among others:

·the challenge of integrating the Lannett and KUPI businesses while also effectively carrying on the ongoing operations of each business;

·the challenge of integrating the business cultures of each company;

·the challenges of managing customer relationships smoothly and maintaining customer accounts, particularly in instances where both companies serve the same customer;

·difficulties encountered in any internal reorganization that we may undertake;

·the challenge and cost of integrating the information technology and financial management systems of each company; and

·the potential difficulty in retaining key personnel.

The process of integrating operations could cause an interruption of, or loss of momentum in, the activities of one or more of Lannett’s or KUPI’s businesses and may require us to incur substantial costs.  Members of senior management may be required to devote considerable amounts of time and attention to this integration process, which will decrease the time they will have to manage our business, service existing customers, attract new customers, develop new services or strategies and manage risk. If senior management is not able to effectively manage the integration process, or if any significant business activities are interrupted as a result of the integration process, the combined business could suffer.

Additionally, we must integrate the accounting systems of Lannett and KUPI, which may be incompatible and which may take different approaches to similar accounting policies, including revenue recognition. The changes in accounting policies and integrating these disparate accounting systems and records have placed and will continue to place, significant additional demands on our management, administrative and operational resources, including our accounting resources. We cannot guarantee that this integration will be able to identify and resolve all issues in the integration time frame contemplated, or at all, or that the integration will not cost more than we have budgeted. Any delay in integrating our accounting systems may have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

We cannot assure you that we will successfully or cost-effectively integrate the Lannett and KUPI businesses. The failure to do so could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

We may not realize the anticipated synergies, cost savings and growth opportunities from the Acquisition.

The benefits that we expect to achieve as a result of the Acquisition will depend, in part, on the ability of the combined company to realize anticipated growth opportunities and cost synergies. Our success in realizing these growth opportunities and cost synergies and the timing of this realization, depends on the successful integration of the historical Lannett business and operations and the historical KUPI business and operations. Even if we are able to integrate the Lannett and KUPI businesses and operations successfully, this integration may not result in the realization of the full benefits of the growth opportunities and cost synergies that we currently expect from this integration within the anticipated time frame or at all. Moreover, we may incur substantial expenses in connection with this integration. While we anticipate that certain expenses will be incurred, such expenses are difficult to estimate accurately and may exceed current estimates. Accordingly, the benefits from the Acquisition may be offset by costs or delays incurred in integrating the businesses.

The Company is in the process of seeking restoration by the FDA of an AB rating for its methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release product. Such restoration could take significant time, if it occurs at all, and failure to timely reestablish an AB rating may adversely affect our financial results.

During a teleconference in November 2014, the FDA informed KUPI that it had concerns about whether generic versions of Concerta (methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release tablets), including KUPI’s Methylphenidate ER product, are therapeutically equivalent to Concerta.  The FDA indicated that its concerns were based in part on adverse event reports concerning lack of effect and its analyses of pharmacokinetic data.  The FDA informed KUPI that it was changing the therapeutic equivalence rating of its product from “AB” (therapeutically equivalent) to “BX.”  A BX-rated drug is a product for which data are insufficient to determine therapeutic equivalence; it is still approved and can be prescribed, but the FDA does not recommend it as automatically substitutable for the brand-name drug at the pharmacy.

32

Table of Contents

During the November 2014 teleconference, the FDA also asked KUPI to either voluntarily withdraw its product or to conduct new bioequivalence (“BE”) testing in accordance with the recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence to Concerta proposed in a new draft BE guidance that the FDA issued earlier that November.  The FDA had approved the KUPI product (and originally granted it an AB rating) in 2013, on the basis of KUPI data showing its product met BE criteria set forth in draft BE guidance that the FDA had issued in 2012.  The FDA’s position concerning the KUPI product was the subject of a public announcement by the agency. The Company agreed to conduct new BE studies per the new draft BE guidance.  KUPI submitted the data from those studies to the FDA in June 2015.  The Company continues to pursue the FDA to obtain its decision on the submitted study as well as its response on whether it will restore the AB-rating for our product.

On October 18, 2016, the Company received notice from the FDA that it will seek to withdraw approval of the Company’s ANDA for Methylphenidate ER.  The FDA’s notice includes an opportunity for the Company to request a hearing on this matter.  The Company initially had until November 17, 2016 to request the hearing and until December 19, 2016 to submit all data, information and analyses upon which the request for a hearing relies.

On November 30, 2016, the Company announced that the FDA granted a 90-day extension to submit documentation related to the hearing request.  On February 22, 2017, the Company announced that the FDA suspended indefinitely the deadline to submit supporting documentation related to the hearing request in order to give the FDA additional time to retrieve documents requested by the Company.

The Company intends to continue working to submit data to the FDA to regain the “AB” rating, or to maintain the drug on the U.S. market with a B-level rating, however, there can be no assurance as to when or if the Company will be permitted to remain on the market.

KUPI has received notification regarding state inquiries into its pricing practices.

In August 2015, KUPI received a letter from the Texas Office of the Attorney General alleging that KUPI had inaccurately reported certain price information in violation of the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act.  The Company is currently cooperating with the Texas Attorney General’s Office, however, the outcome of the investigation could result in serious fines being levied on us, along with harm to our reputation.  Any negative outcome from this or any other investigation related to our pricing could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Risks Related to our Indebtedness

Our substantial indebtedness may adversely affect our financial health.

We currently have substantial indebtedness. As of June 30, 2017, we had total indebtedness of $983.0 million, which primarily consists of an amended term loan facility (the “Amended Term Loan Facility”).  We also have an undrawn $125.0 million revolving credit facility (the “Revolving Credit Facility”).  The Amended Term Loan Facility consists of an initial $910.0 million senior secured term loan facility (the “Senior Secured Term Loan Facility”), which was amended in June 2016 to include an additional $150.0 million incremental term loan (the “Incremental Term Loan”).  The Amended Term Loan Facility, together with the Revolving Credit Facility comprises the amended senior secured credit facility (the “Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility”).

Our substantial indebtedness may have important consequences for us. For example, it may:

·make it more difficult for us to make payments on our indebtedness;

·increase our vulnerability to general economic and industry conditions, including recessions and periods of significant inflation and financial market volatility;

·expose us to the risk of increased interest rates, because any borrowings we make under the Revolving Facility and other borrowings under the Term Loan Facility under certain circumstances, will bear interest at variable rates;

·require us to use a substantial portion of cash flow from operations to service our indebtedness, thereby reducing our ability to fund working capital, capital expenditures and other expenses;

·limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;

33

Table of Contents

·place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors that have less indebtedness; and

·limit our ability to borrow additional funds that may be needed to operate and expand our business.

The Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility imposes operating and financial restrictions, which may prevent us from pursuing certain business opportunities and taking certain actions that may be potentially profitable or in our best interests.

The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility restrict and future debt instruments may restrict, subject to certain important exceptions and qualifications, our and our subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

·incur or guarantee additional indebtedness;

·make certain investments or acquisitions;

·grant or permit certain liens on our assets;

·enter into certain transactions with affiliates;

·pay dividends, redeem our equity or make other restricted payments;

·prepay, repurchase or redeem contractually subordinated debt and certain other debt;

·merge, consolidate or transfer substantially all of our assets;

·transfer, sell or dispose of property and assets; and

·change the business we conduct or enter into new kinds of business.

These covenants could adversely affect our ability to finance our future operations or capital needs, withstand a future downturn in our business or the economy in general, engage in business activities, including future opportunities that may be in our interest and plan for or react to market conditions or otherwise execute our business strategies. Our ability to comply with these covenants may be affected by events beyond our control. A breach of any of these covenants could result in a default in respect of the related indebtedness. If an event of default occurs, the relevant lenders or holders of such indebtedness could elect to declare the indebtedness, together with accrued interest, fees and other liabilities, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against any collateral securing that indebtedness. Acceleration of our other indebtedness could result in a default under the terms of the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility. There is no guarantee that we would be able to satisfy our obligations if any of our indebtedness is accelerated.

In addition, the limitations imposed in the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility on our ability to incur certain additional debt and to take other corporate actions might significantly impair our ability to obtain other financing.  If, for any reason, we are unable to comply with the restrictions in the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility, we may not be granted waivers or amendments to such restrictions or we may not be able to refinance our debt on terms acceptable to us, or at all.  The lenders under the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility also have the right in these circumstances to terminate any commitments they have to provide further borrowings.  If we fail to meet any covenants in our Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility and cannot secure a waiver for such failure, the lenders under our Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility would be entitled to exercise various rights, including causing the amounts outstanding under the entire Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility to become immediately due and payable.  If we were unable to pay such amounts, the lenders under the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility could recover amounts owed to them by foreclosing against the collateral pledged to them.  We have pledged a substantial portion of our assets to the lenders under the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility, including the equity of our subsidiaries.

Our Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility contains a financial covenant and other restrictive covenants that limit our flexibility. We may not be able to comply with these covenants, which could result in the amounts outstanding under our Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility becoming immediately due and payable.

Our Revolving Credit Facility requires us to comply with a first lien net leverage ratio not to exceed 4.25:1.00 when there are outstanding loans and letters of credit (other than (i) drawn letters of credit that have been cash collateralized, (ii) up to $5.0 million of undrawn letters of credit and (iii) with respect to each test period ending on or prior to December 31, 2016, up to $22.8 million of loans under the Revolving Credit Facility made on the Acquisition closing date) thereunder that exceed 30% of the aggregate commitment amount under the Revolving Credit Facility of $125.0 million as of the last day of the applicable fiscal quarter (with two step downs occurring as of December 31, 2017 and as of December 31, 2019 of 3.75:1.00 and 3.25:1.00, respectively).

34

Table of Contents

In addition, the Term Loan A Facility is subject to a financial performance covenant, which provides that the Company shall not permit its secured net leverage ratio as of the last day of any four consecutive fiscal quarters to be greater than 4.25:1.00 (with two step downs occurring as of December 31, 2017 and as of December 31, 2019 to 3.75:1.00 and 3.25:1.00, respectively).  Accordingly, if our liquidity and performance significantly worsens, we could become non-compliant with such covenants.

We are also subject to requirements to make mandatory prepayments, with the net proceeds of certain asset sales, excess cash flows and debt issuances. These requirements could limit our ability to obtain future financing, make acquisitions or needed capital expenditures, withstand any downturns in our business or the economy in general, conduct operations or otherwise take advantage of business opportunities that may arise, any of which could place us at a competitive disadvantage relative to our competitors that have less debt and are not subject to such restrictions.

Our variable rate indebtedness subjects us to interest rate risk, which could cause our debt service obligations to increase significantly.

Borrowings under the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility are at variable rates of interest and expose us to interest rate risk. Interest rates are currently at historically low levels.  If interest rates increase, our debt service obligations on our variable rate indebtedness will increase even though the amount borrowed remained the same and our net income and cash flows, including cash available for servicing our indebtedness, will correspondingly decrease.  Based on total indebtedness as of June 30, 2017 and the assumption that interest rates are above the interest rate floor set forth in the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility, each 1/8th percentage point change in interest rates would result in a $1.2 million change in annual interest expense on our indebtedness under the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility.

Due to many factors beyond our control, we may not be able to generate sufficient cash to service all of our indebtedness and meet our other ongoing liquidity needs and we may be forced to take other actions to satisfy our obligations under our debt agreements, which may not be successful.

Our ability to make payments on and to refinance, our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. This is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors, many of which are beyond our control.

Our business may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations and we may not have available to us future borrowings in an amount sufficient, to enable us to pay our indebtedness or to fund our other liquidity needs. In these circumstances, we may need to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness on or before maturity. Any refinancing of our debt could be at higher interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants, which could further restrict our business operations. Our ability to refinance our indebtedness or obtain additional financing will depend on, among other things:

·our financial condition at the time;

·restriction in the agreements governing our indebtedness; and

·the condition of the financial markets and the industry in which we operate.

As a result, we may not be able to refinance any of our indebtedness on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In such a case, we could be forced to sell assets, reduce or delay capital expenditures or issue equity securities to make up for any shortfall in our payment obligations under unfavorable circumstances. The terms of the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility limit our ability to sell assets. In addition, we may not be able to sell assets quickly enough or for sufficient amounts to enable us to meet our obligations. Any failure to make scheduled payments of interest and principal on our outstanding indebtedness when due would permit the holders of such indebtedness to declare an event of default and accelerate the indebtedness. This could result in the lenders under the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility terminating their commitments to lend us money and foreclosing against the assets securing the borrowings and we could be forced into bankruptcy or other insolvency proceedings. In addition, any failure to make payments of interest and principal on our outstanding indebtedness on a timely basis would likely result in a reduction of our credit rating, which could harm our ability to incur additional indebtedness on acceptable terms.

Despite our substantial indebtedness level, we and any of our existing or future subsidiaries may still be able to incur substantially more debt, which could exacerbate the risks associated with our substantial leverage.

The terms of the agreements governing the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility permit us and our subsidiaries to incur a substantial amount of additional debt, including secured debt. Although the agreement that governs the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of qualifications and exceptions and the indebtedness incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial.

35

Table of Contents

Additionally, the Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility may be increased from time to time, subject to certain conditions. All of those borrowings would be secured indebtedness. If new debt is added to our and our subsidiaries’ current debt levels, the risks that we now face as a result of our leverage would intensify and we may not be able to meet all of our debt obligations, in whole or in part.

36

Table of Contents

ITEM 2.                                                DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

Lannett owns five facilities in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Certain administrative functions, manufacturing and production facilities and our quality control laboratory are located in a 31,000 square foot facility at 9000 State Road, Philadelphia, PA.  The second facility consists of 63,000 square feet and is located within one mile of the State Road facility at 9001 Torresdale Avenue, Philadelphia, PA.  Our research and development function is located at this location.  Additionally, the facility has capacity for additional manufacturing space, if needed.  We also own a building at 13200 Townsend Road Philadelphia, PA consisting of 66,000 square feet on 7.3 acres of land which is used for certain administrative functions, warehouse space and shipping.  It also has capacity for additional manufacturing space, if needed.

On December 20, 2013, the Company acquired two separate properties located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for $4.0 million and $5.0 million.  The buildings are 196,000 and 400,000 square feet.  In connection with the purchase of these two buildings, the Company expects to incur capital expenditures for fit out costs over the next several years.

The manufacturing facility of our wholly-owned subsidiary, Cody Labs, consists of a 73,000 square foot structure located on approximately 15.0 acres in Cody, Wyoming.  Cody Labs’ manufacturing facility currently has capacity for further expansion, both inside and outside the existing structure.

In connection with the acquisition of Silarx, the Company acquired an 110,000 square foot manufacturing facility located in Carmel, New York, which sits on 25.8 acres of land.  The facility currently houses manufacturing, packaging, research and development and has capacity for additional manufacturing space, if needed.

KUPI’s 432,000 square foot Seymour, Indiana facility contains approximately 107,000 square feet of manufacturing space as well as a leased 116,000 square foot temperature/humidity controlled storage warehouse.  The Seymour facility has had satisfactory inspections conducted by the FDA and EMA and similar regulatory authorities of Japan, Taiwan, Brazil, Korea and Turkey.  Since 2008, KUPI has made significant improvements to its facility and equipment.  These improvements enabled the facility to increase production from approximately 1.2 billion doses in 2008 to over 2.7 billion doses in 2014.  KUPI also completed a 20,000 square foot expansion of the facility which increased capacity to 3.9 billion doses.

ITEM 3.                                                LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Information pertaining to legal proceedings can be found in Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies” under Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules and is incorporated by reference herein.

ITEM 4.                                                MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURES

Not applicable

37

Table of Contents

PART II

ITEM 5.                                                MARKET FOR COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

Market Information

The Company’s common stock trades on the NYSE.  The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the intraday high and intraday low sales prices per share of the Company’s common stock during Fiscal 2017 and 2016, as quoted by the NYSE.

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2017

Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2016

Holders

As of June 30, 2017, there were 547 holders of record of the Company’s common stock.

Dividends

The Company did not pay cash dividends in Fiscal 2017 or Fiscal 2016.  The Company intends to use available funds for working capital, to pay down outstanding debt, plant and equipment additions, various product extension ventures and mergers and acquisitions or other growth opportunities.  In addition, the Company is subject to certain restrictions on dividends under its Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility.  The Company does not expect to pay, nor should stockholders expect to receive, cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

38

Table of Contents

The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the Company’s share repurchase activity.

ISSUER PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES

*Shares were repurchased to settle employee tax withholding obligations pursuant to equity award programs.

Stock Performance Chart

The following graph presents a comparison of the cumulative total stockholder return on the Company’s stock with the cumulative total return of various indexes for the period of five fiscal years commencing July 1, 2012 and ending June 30, 2017.  The graph assumes that $100 was invested on July 1, 2012 in each of the various indexes.

39

Table of Contents

ITEM 6.                                                SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

The following financial information as of and for the five years ended June 30, 2017, has been derived from our consolidated financial statements.  This information should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included elsewhere herein.

Lannett Company, Inc. and Subsidiaries

Financial Highlights

Settlement agreement relates to a Settlement Agreement Release and Mutual Release with one of the Company’s former customers.  Refer to Note 22 “Settlement Agreement” for additional information.

On November 25, 2015, the Company completed the acquisition of KUPI.  The Company’s Consolidated Statements of Operations for Fiscal 2016 and Fiscal 2017 includes the impact of KUPI from that date.

40

Table of Contents

ITEM 7.                                                MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion and analysis describes significant changes in the financial condition and results of operations, as well as liquidity and capital resources of the Company.  Additionally, it addresses accounting policies that management has deemed are “critical accounting policies.”  This discussion and analysis is intended as a supplement to and should be read in conjunction with the Consolidated Financial Statements, the Notes to the Consolidated Financial Statements and other sections of this Form 10-K.

The following discussion contains forward-looking statements.  You should refer to the “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” set forth in Part I of this Annual Report.

All references to “Fiscal 2017” or “Fiscal Year 2017” shall mean the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 and all references to “Fiscal 2016” or “Fiscal Year 2016” shall mean the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016.

Company Overview

Lannett Company, Inc. (a Delaware corporation) and its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company”, “Lannett”, “we” or “us”) develop, manufacture, package, market and distribute solid oral and extended release (tablets and capsules), topical, nasal and oral solution finished dosage forms of drugs, that address a wide range of therapeutic areas.  Certain of these products are manufactured by others and distributed by the Company.  The Company also manufactures active pharmaceutical ingredients through its Cody Labs subsidiary, providing a vertical integration benefit.  Additionally, the Company is pursuing partnerships, research contracts and internal expansion for the development and production of other dosage forms including: ophthalmic, nasal, patch, foam, buccal, sublingual, soft gel, injectable and oral dosages.

On November 25, 2015, the Company completed the acquisition of Kremers Urban Pharmaceutical, Inc. (“KUPI”), the former subsidiary of global biopharmaceuticals company UCB S.A.  KUPI is a specialty pharmaceuticals manufacturer focused on the development of products that are difficult to formulate or utilize specialized delivery technologies.  Strategic benefits of the acquisition include expanded manufacturing capacity, a diversified product portfolio and pipeline and complementary research and development expertise.

The Company operates pharmaceutical manufacturing plants in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Cody, Wyoming; Carmel, New York and Seymour, Indiana.  The Company’s customers include generic pharmaceutical distributors, drug wholesalers, chain drug stores, private label distributors, mail-order pharmacies, other pharmaceutical manufacturers, managed care organizations, hospital buying groups, governmental entities and health maintenance organizations.

2016 Restructuring Plan

On February 1, 2016, in connection with the acquisition of KUPI, the Company announced a plan related to the future integration of KUPI and the Company’s operations (the “2016 Restructuring Program”). The plan focuses on the closure of KUPI’s corporate functions and the consolidation of manufacturing, sales, research and development and distribution functions. The Company estimates that it will incur an aggregate of up to approximately $21.0 million in restructuring charges for actions that have been announced or communicated since the 2016 Restructuring Program began.  Of this amount, approximately $12.0 million relates to employee separation costs, approximately $1.0 million relates to contract termination costs and approximately $8.0 million relates to facility closures costs and other actions.

The plan is currently estimated to generate annualized synergies of approximately $50.0 million by the end of Fiscal 2018 and is expected to achieve an ultimate annual run rate of synergies totaling approximately $65.0 million by the end of Fiscal 2020.

These amounts are preliminary estimates based on the information currently available to management. It is possible that additional charges and future cash payments could occur in relation to the restructuring actions.

Financial Summary

For Fiscal 2017, net sales increased to $637.3 million compared to $566.1 million in the same prior-year period.  Total net sales, which included a $4.0 million adjustment relating to the Fiscal 2016 settlement agreement amount, increased to $633.3 million compared to $542.5 million in the prior-year period, which included a $23.6 million reduction for a settlement agreement.  Gross profit, which includes the settlement agreement adjustment in both periods, increased $14.7 million to $301.2 million, compared to the prior-year period and gross profit percentage decreased to 48% compared to 53% in Fiscal 2016.  Excluding the impact of the settlement agreement, gross profit as a percentage of net sales decreased to 48% from 55% in the prior-year period.  R&D expenses decreased 7% to $42.1 million compared to the prior-year period while SG&A expenses increased 8% to $73.5 million. 

41

Table of Contents

Acquisition and integration-related expenses decreased to $4.0 million from $27.2 million in the prior-year period.  Restructuring expenses totaled $7.2 million in both Fiscal 2017 and 2016.  Operating income for Fiscal 2017, which included an $88.1 million intangible assets impairment charge, was $86.4 million compared to $130.8 million in the prior-year period, which included an $8.0 million intangible asset impairment charge.  Net loss attributable to Lannett Company, Inc. for Fiscal 2017 was $581 thousand, or $0.02 per diluted share.  Comparatively, net income attributable to Lannett Company, Inc. in the prior year, which included a $3.0 million loss on extinguishment of debt, was $44.8 million, or $1.20 per diluted share.

A more detailed discussion of the Company’s financial results can be found below.

Results of Operations — Fiscal 2017 compared to Fiscal 2016

Total net sales, which included a $4.0 million reduction for an adjustment to the Fiscal 2016 Settlement Agreement amount, increased to $633.3 million from $542.5 million in the prior-year period, which included a $23.6 million reduction for the Fiscal 2016 Settlement Agreement.  The Fiscal 2016 Settlement Agreement relates to a Settlement Agreement Release and Mutual Release with one of the Company’s former customers.  Refer to Note 22 “Settlement Agreement” for additional information.

Net sales increased 13% to $637.3 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017.  The following table identifies the Company’s approximate net product sales by medical indication for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016:

The increase in net sales was primarily driven by additional sales of KUPI products of $87.9 million due to the timing of the acquisition as well as increased volumes of $21.5 million, partially offset by decreased average selling price of products of $38.2 million.  Average selling prices were impacted by competitive pricing pressure across a number of products, product mix and changes within distribution channels.

Effective January 2017, a provision in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 required drug manufacturers to pay additional rebates to state Medicaid programs if the prices of their generic drugs rise at a rate faster than inflation.  The provision negatively impacted the Company’s net sales by $10.2 million in Fiscal 2017.

42

Table of Contents

The following chart details price, volume and acquisition changes by medical indication:

Central Nervous System.  Methylphenidate Hydrochloride Extended Release Tablets (“Methylphenidate ER”)

During a teleconference in November 2014, the FDA informed KUPI that it had concerns about whether generic versions of Concerta (methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release tablets), including KUPI’s Methylphenidate ER product, are therapeutically equivalent to Concerta.  The FDA indicated that its concerns were based in part on adverse event reports concerning lack of effect and its analyses of pharmacokinetic data.  The FDA informed KUPI that it was changing the therapeutic equivalence rating of its product from “AB” (therapeutically equivalent) to “BX.”  A BX-rated drug is a product for which data are insufficient to determine therapeutic equivalence; it is still approved and can be prescribed, but the FDA does not recommend it as automatically substitutable for the brand-name drug at the pharmacy.

During the November 2014 teleconference, the FDA also asked KUPI to either voluntarily withdraw its product or to conduct new bioequivalence (“BE”) testing in accordance with the recommendations for demonstrating bioequivalence to Concerta proposed in a new draft BE guidance that the FDA issued earlier that November.  The FDA had approved the KUPI product (and originally granted it an AB rating) in 2013, on the basis of KUPI data showing its product met BE criteria set forth in draft BE guidance that the FDA had issued in 2012.  The FDA’s position concerning the KUPI product was the subject of a public announcement by the agency. The Company agreed to conduct new BE studies per the new draft BE guidance.  KUPI submitted the data from those studies to the FDA in June 2015.  The Company continues to pursue the FDA to obtain its decision on the submitted study as well as its response on whether it will restore the AB-rating for our product.

On October 18, 2016, the Company received notice from the FDA that it will seek to withdraw approval of the Company’s ANDA for Methylphenidate ER.  The FDA’s notice includes an opportunity for the Company to request a hearing on this matter.  The Company initially had until November 17, 2016 to request the hearing and until December 19, 2016 to submit all data, information and analyses upon which the request for a hearing relies.  As a result of the notice, the Company performed an impairment analysis including a review of revised net sales projections for Methylphenidate ER.  This analysis resulted in the Company recording a $65.1 million impairment charge in the first quarter of Fiscal 2017.

On November 30, 2016, the Company announced that the FDA granted a 90-day extension to submit documentation related to the hearing request.  On February 22, 2017, the Company announced that the FDA suspended indefinitely the deadline to submit supporting documentation related to the hearing request in order to give the FDA additional time to retrieve documents requested by the Company.

The Company intends to continue working to submit data to the FDA to regain the “AB” rating, or to maintain the drug on the U.S. market with a B-level rating, however, there can be no assurance as to when or if the Company will be permitted to remain on the market.  If the Company were to receive the “AB” rating, net sales of the product could increase subject to market factors existing at that time.  The Company also agreed to potential acquisition-related contingent payments to UCB related to Methylphenidate ER if the FDA reinstates the AB-rating and certain sales thresholds are met.  Such potential contingent payments are set to expire after December 31, 2020.

The Company sells its products to customers through various distribution channels.  The table below presents the Company’s net sales to each distribution channel for the fiscal year ended June 30:

43

Table of Contents

Net sales to wholesaler/distributor and mail-order pharmacies increased primarily as a result of additional net sales related to the KUPI acquisition.  Net sales to retail chain decreased as a result of strategic partnerships within the industry, in which certain retailers have begun to submit orders through the wholesalers.

Cost of Sales, including amortization of intangibles.  Cost of sales, including amortization of intangibles, for Fiscal 2017 increased $76.1 million to $332.1 million.  The increase was primarily attributable to additional cost of sales from KUPI due to the timing of the acquisition, partially offset by the effects of purchase accounting related to the amortization of inventory step-up of $17.0 million in Fiscal 2016.  Product royalties expense included in cost of sales totaled $19.0 million for Fiscal 2017 and $17.0 million for Fiscal 2016.  Amortization expense included in cost of sales totaled $32.1 million for Fiscal 2017 and $18.6 million for Fiscal 2016.  The increase primarily reflected additional amortization of the acquired intangibles from the acquisition of KUPI.

Gross Profit.  Gross profit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 increased 5% to $301.2 million or 48% of total net sales.  In comparison, gross profit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 was $286.5 million or 53% of total net sales.  The decrease in gross profit percentage was attributable to the dilutive impact of KUPI products, sales mix, changes within distribution channels, additional amortization of intangibles, as well as amortization of inventory step-up and depreciation of property, plant and equipment related to the acquisition of KUPI.

Research and Development Expenses.  Research and development expenses decreased 7% to $42.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 compared to $45.1 million in the prior-year period.  The decrease was primarily due to lower product development and bio-equivalency studies expenses in the current-year period, partially offset by an increase due to the timing of the KUPI acquisition, as well as a $3.8 million write-off of inventory related to the delay of an anticipated approval.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses.  Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 8% to $73.5 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 compared with $68.3 million in the prior-year period.  The increase was primarily due to the timing of the KUPI acquisition, which resulted in additional selling, general and administrative expenses.  Increased headcount as well as additional legal and consulting costs also contributed to the increase.

The Company is focused on controlling operating expenses and has implemented its 2016 Restructuring Plan as noted above, however increases in personnel and other costs to facilitate enhancements in the Company’s infrastructure and expansion may continue to impact operating expenses in future periods.

Acquisition and Integration-related Expenses.  Acquisition and integration-related expenses decreased $23.2 million to $4.0 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 compared with $27.2 million compared to the prior-year period. The decrease was due to higher costs during Fiscal 2016 associated with the acquisition of KUPI.

Restructuring Expenses.  Restructuring expenses were consistent with the prior-year period as a result of an increase in facility closure costs, offset by a decrease in employee separation costs.

Intangible Assets Impairment Charge.  On October 18, 2016, the Company received notice from the FDA that it will seek to withdraw approval of the Company’s ANDA for Methylphenidate ER.  As a result of the notice, the Company performed an impairment analysis including a review of revised net sales projections for Methylphenidate ER.  This analysis resulted in the Company recording a $65.1 million impairment charge in the first quarter of Fiscal 2017.  Additionally, in the second quarter of Fiscal 2017, the Company abandoned a project within KUPI’s in-process research and development portfolio.  The value assigned to the project was $23.0 million.  Accordingly, the Company recorded a $23.0 million impairment charge in the second quarter.

Other Income (Loss).  Interest expense in Fiscal 2017 totaled $89.4 million compared to $65.9 million in the prior-year period.  The fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 included approximately seven months of interest expense related to the acquisition of KUPI as compared to the twelve months ended June 30, 2017.   The weighted average interest rate for Fiscal 2017 was 8.0%.  Investment income in Fiscal 2017 totaled $3.8 million compared to investment income of $368 thousand in the prior-year period. 

44

Table of Contents

The Company also recorded a $3.0 million loss on extinguishment of debt related to the repurchase of the 12.0% Senior Notes in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2016.

Income Tax.  The Company recorded income tax expense for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 of $1.1 million compared to $17.3 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016.  The effective tax rate for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 was 199.5%, compared to 27.9% for the prior-year period.  The increase in the effective tax rate in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 as compared to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 was primarily due to the impact of state deferred income tax in Fiscal 2017 relative to pre-tax income.

At June 30, 2017 and 2016, the Company had recognized a net deferred tax asset of $52.8 million and $52.4 million, respectively.  The net deferred tax assets as of June 30, 2017 and 2016 are reduced by a valuation allowance of $6.4 million and $3.9 million, respectively, which are primarily related to the realizability of deferred tax assets for various states, the impairment on the Cody note receivable as well as foreign net operating losses.  The Company increased the valuation allowance in Fiscal 2017 primarily related to an increase of state deferred tax assets.

Net Income (Loss).  For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017, the Company reported net loss attributable to Lannett Company, Inc. of $581 thousand, or $0.02 basic and diluted per share.  Comparatively, net income attributable to Lannett Company, Inc. in the prior-year was $44.8 million, or $1.23 basic and $1.20 per diluted share.

Results of Operations — Fiscal 2016 compared to Fiscal 2015

Total net sales, which included a $23.6 million reduction for a settlement agreement, increased to $542.5 million from $406.8 million in the prior-year period.  The settlement agreement relates to a Settlement Agreement Release and Mutual Release with one of the Company’s former customers.  Refer to Note 22 “Settlement Agreement” for additional information.

Net sales increased 39% to $566.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016.  The following table identifies the Company’s approximate net product sales by medical indication for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2016 and 2015:

Revenues from the KUPI acquisition of $165.6 million and increased volumes of $38.7 million contributed to the overall increase in net sales, partially offset by product price decreases of $45.0 million.  Although the Company has benefited in the past from favorable pricing trends, the trends are stabilizing and in, some instances, beginning to reverse.  During the period, the Company experienced pricing pressure and increased competition on several products.  The level of competition in the marketplace is constantly changing and the Company cannot predict with certainty the extent to which pricing pressures will continue.

45

Table of Contents

The following chart details price, volume and acquisition changes by medical indication:

The Company sells its products to customers in various distribution channels.  The table below presents the Company’s net sales to each distribution channel for the fiscal year ended June 30:

Net sales to wholesaler/distributor and retail chain increased primarily as a result of additional net sales related to the KUPI acquisition.  Mail-order pharmacy net sales decreased primarily as a result of lower cardiovascular drug sales as well as drugs used for the treatment of gallstones to a specific mail-order pharmacy customer.

Cost of Sales, including amortization of intangibles.  Cost of sales for Fiscal 2016 increased $155.5 million to $256.0 million. The increase primarily reflected additional costs from the acquisition of KUPI, as well as the effects of purchase accounting related to the amortization of inventory step-up totaling $17.0 million and increased provisions for excess and obsolete inventory totaling $9.4 million.  Product royalties included in cost of sales totaled $17.0 million for Fiscal 2016 and $175 thousand for Fiscal 2015.  The increase was primarily the result of additional product royalties from the acquisition of KUPI.  Amortization of intangible assets included in cost of sales totaled $18.6 million for Fiscal 2016 and $137 thousand for Fiscal 2015.  The increase primarily reflected additional amortization of the acquired intangibles from the acquisition of KUPI and Silarx.

Gross Profit.  Gross profit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 decreased 6% to $286.5 million or 53% of total net sales.  In comparison, gross profit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 was $306.4 million or 75% of total net sales.  The decrease in gross profit percentage for Fiscal 2016 was attributable to the settlement agreement, the dilutive impact of gross profit margins of KUPI products, additional amortization of intangibles, as well as amortization of inventory step-up and depreciation of property, plant and equipment step-up related to the acquisition of KUPI.  Product mix and pricing pressures also contributed to lower gross profit as a percentage of total net sales during Fiscal 2016.  Excluding the impact of KUPI and the settlement agreement, gross profit as a percentage of total net sales decreased to 71%.

Research and Development Expenses.  Research and development expenses increased 48% to $45.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 compared to $30.3 million in the prior year period.  The increase was primarily due to the acquisitions of KUPI and Silarx, which resulted in additional research and development expenses.  The increase was partially offset by lower contract laboratory and bio-equivalency studies expenses.

Selling, General and Administrative Expenses.  Selling, general and administrative expenses increased 51% to $68.3 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 compared with $45.2 million in the prior year period.  The increase was primarily due to the acquisition of KUPI and Silarx, which resulted in additional selling, general and administrative expenses. 

46

Table of Contents

Additional compensation-related costs, including separation benefits for two former executive officers, also contributed to the increase.

The Company is focused on controlling operating expenses and has implemented its 2016 Restructuring Plan as noted above, however increases in personnel and other costs to facilitate enhancements in the Company’s infrastructure and expansion may continue to impact operating expenses in future periods.

Acquisition and Integration-related Expenses.  Acquisition and integration-related expenses increased $22.9 million compared to the prior year period. The increase was primarily due to costs associated with the acquisition of KUPI, including investment banking, legal and accounting fees as well as post-acquisition integration costs.  In the fourth quarter of Fiscal Year 2016, the Company also recorded compensation-related expense, of which $2.5 million was classified as integration-related expenses.

Restructuring Expenses.  Restructuring expenses increased $7.2 million compared to the prior year period as a result of implementing the 2016 Restructuring Program on February 1, 2016.

Intangible Assets Impairment Charge.  As part of the Company’s annual impairment analysis performed in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2016, the Company recorded an $8.0 million impairment charge related to certain intangible assets acquired as part of the KUPI acquisition.  The impairment was mainly related to delays in expected launch dates as well as competitive pricing factors for two products in development.

Other Income (Loss).  Interest expense in Fiscal 2016 totaled $65.9 million compared to $207 thousand in the prior year period.  The increase was due to interest on debt obligations used to finance the acquisition of KUPI, as well as amortization of debt discount and other debt issuance costs.  The weighted average interest rate for Fiscal 2016 was 9.1%.  Investment income in Fiscal 2016 totaled $368 thousand compared to investment income of $1.1 million in the prior year period.  The Company also recorded a $3.0 million loss on extinguishment of debt related to the repurchase of the 12.0% Senior Notes in the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2016.

Income Tax.  The Company recorded income tax expense for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 of $17.3 million compared to $77.4 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015.  The effective tax rate for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 was 27.9%, compared to 34.0% for the prior year period.  The decrease in the effective tax rate in the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 as compared to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2015 was primarily due to state deferred tax benefits recorded in Fiscal 2016 as a result of the KUPI acquisition, as compared to overall state deferred tax expense in Fiscal 2015.  In addition, research and development tax credits and domestic manufacturing deductions relative to pre-tax income also contributed to the lower effective tax rate for Fiscal 2016 compared to Fiscal 2015.

At June 30, 2016, the Company had recognized a net deferred tax asset of $52.4 million.  The net deferred tax asset is net of a valuation allowance of $3.9 million that is primarily related to the Cody notes receivable impairment recorded in conjunction with the acquisition of Cody Labs.  The Company expects the remaining net deferred tax assets to be fully realizable based on the Company’s history and future expectations of taxable income.

Net Income.  For the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016, the Company reported net income attributable to Lannett Company, Inc. of $44.8 million, or $1.23 basic and $1.20 per diluted share.  Comparatively, net income attributable to Lannett Company, Inc. in the prior year was $149.9 million, or $4.18 basic and $4.04 per diluted share.

47

Table of Contents

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Cash Flow

Until November 25, 2015, the date of the KUPI acquisition, the Company had historically financed its operations with cash flow generated from operations supplemented with borrowings from various government agencies and financial institutions.  At June 30, 2017, working capital was $331.5 million as compared to $306.1 million at June 30, 2016, an increase of $25.4 million.  Current product portfolio sales as well as sales related to future product approvals are anticipated to continue to generate positive cash flow from operations, which we expect will be sufficient to service our outstanding debt.

Net cash from operating activities of $165.4 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 reflected net loss of $547 thousand, adjustments for non-cash items of $170.7 million, as well as cash used by changes in operating assets and liabilities of $4.8 million.  In comparison, net cash from operating activities of $135.3 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 reflected net income of $44.9 million, adjustments for non-cash items of $48.1 million, as well as cash provided by changes in operating assets and liabilities of $42.3 million.

Significant changes in operating assets and liabilities from June 30, 2016 to June 30, 2017 are comprised of:

·                  An increase in prepaid income taxes totaling $17.7 million mainly due to estimated tax payments made during Fiscal 2017 relative to estimated taxable income.

·                  An increase in inventories of $7.7 million primarily due to the timing of customer order fulfillment.

·                  An increase in rebates payable of $14.4 million due to an increase in rebate-eligible sales to government programs as well as the timing of processed rebates.

·                  An increase in accounts payable totaling $5.0 million due to the timing of payments.

Significant changes in operating assets and liabilities from June 30, 2015 to June 30, 2016 are comprised of:

·                  A decrease in accounts receivable of $15.1 million due to lower gross accounts receivable outstanding and the timing of collections during the quarter ended June 30, 2016 compared to the quarter ended June 30, 2015.  The Company’s days sales outstanding (“DSO”) at June 30, 2016, based on gross sales for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 and gross accounts receivable at June 30, 2016, was 77 days.  The level of DSO at June 30, 2016 was comparable to the Company’s expectation that DSO will be in the 70 to 80 day range based on customer payment terms.

·                  A decrease in inventories of $15.3 million primarily due to the timing of customer order fulfillment.

·                  A decrease in accrued payroll and payroll-related costs of $20.9 million primarily related to payments made in the third quarter of Fiscal 2016 in connection with compensation accrued by KUPI prior to the acquisition as well as payments made in August 2015 in connection with incentive compensation accrued in Fiscal Year 2015.

·                  A decrease in other assets of $7.7 million primarily related to compensation-related reimbursements received from UCB.

·                  An increase in settlement liability of $18.6 million related to a settlement charge recorded in the third quarter of Fiscal 2016, partially offset by payments made pursuant to the agreement.

Net cash used in investing activities of $58.7 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 was primarily due to purchases of investment securities of $77.9 million and purchases of property, plant and equipment of $48.7 million, partially offset by proceeds from the sale of investment securities of $67.8 million.  Net cash used in investing activities of $959.1 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 is mainly the result of the acquisition of KUPI totaling $934.2 million (net of cash acquired), purchases of investment securities of $40.5 million and purchases of property, plant and equipment of $24.3 million, partially offset by proceeds from the sale of investment securities of $39.9 million.

Net cash used in financing activities of $213.8 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2017 was primarily due to debt repayments of $178.2 million, payment of contingent consideration to UCB of $35.0 million, purchases of treasury stock totaling $1.9 million and purchase of the noncontrolling interest in Realty of $1.5 million, partially offset by proceeds from issuance of stock pursuant to stock compensation plans of $2.8 million.  Net cash provided by financing activities of $848.2 million for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2016 was primarily due to proceeds from the issuance of debt totaling $1.0 billion, short-term borrowings under the revolving credit facility of $125.0 million, proceeds from issuance of stock pursuant to stock compensation plans of $4.1 million and excess tax benefits on stock option exercises of $1.5 million, partially offset by debt repayments of $295.0 million, payments of debt issuance costs totaling $34.7 million and purchases of treasury stock totaling $1.3 million.

48

Table of Contents

Credit Facility and Other Indebtedness

The Company has previously entered into and may enter future agreements with various government agencies and financial institutions to provide additional cash to help finance the Company’s various capital investments and potential strategic opportunities.  These borrowing arrangements as of June 30, 2017 are as follows:

Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility

On November 25, 2015, in connection with its acquisition of KUPI, Lannett entered into a credit and guaranty agreement (the “Credit and Guaranty Agreement”) among certain of its wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries, as guarantors, Morgan Stanley Senior Funding, Inc., as administrative agent and collateral agent and other lenders providing for a senior secured credit facility (the “Senior Secured Credit Facility”).  The Senior Secured Credit Facility consisted of Term Loan A in an aggregate principal amount of $275.0 million, Term Loan B in an aggregate principal amount of $635.0 million and a revolving credit facility providing for revolving loans in an aggregate principal amount of up to $125.0 million.  On April 8, 2016, the Company drew down the full $125.0 million Revolving Credit Facility for working capital and other general purposes.  In the third quarter of Fiscal 2017, the Company made voluntary payments totaling $100.0 million against its outstanding revolving credit facility balance.  In the fourth quarter of Fiscal 2017, the Company repaid the remaining $25.0 million revolving credit facility balance.  As of June 30, 2017, there was no balance outstanding under the revolving credit facility.

On June 17, 2016, Lannett amended the Senior Secured Credit Facility and the Credit and Guaranty Agreement to raise an incremental term loan in the principal amount of $150.0 million (the “Incremental Term Loan”) and amended certain sections of the agreement (the “Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility”).  The terms of this Incremental Term Loan are substantially the same as those applicable to the Term Loan B.  The Company used the proceeds of the Incremental Term Loan and cash on hand to repurchase the outstanding $250.0 million aggregate principal amount of Lannett’s 12.0% Senior Notes due 2023 (the “Senior Notes”) issued in connection with the KUPI acquisition.

The Term Loan A Facility will mature on November 25, 2020. The Term Loan A Facility amortizes in quarterly installments (a) through December 31, 2017 in amounts equal to 1.25% of the original principal amount of the Term Loan A Facility and (b) from January 1, 2018 through September 30, 2020 in amounts equal to 2.50% of the original principal amount of the Term Loan A Facility, with the balance payable on November 25, 2020.  The Term Loan B Facility will mature on November 25, 2022.  The Term Loan B Facility amortizes in equal quarterly installments in amounts equal to 1.25% of the original principal amount of the Term Loan B Facility with the balance payable on November 25, 2022.  Any outstanding Revolving Loans will mature on November 25, 2020.

The Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility is guaranteed by all of Lannett’s significant wholly-owned domestic subsidiaries (the “Subsidiary Guarantors”) and is collateralized by substantially all present and future assets of Lannett and the Subsidiary Guarantors.

The interest rates applicable to the Amended Term Loan Facility are based on a fluctuating rate of interest of the greater of an adjusted LIBOR and 1.00%, plus a borrowing margin of 4.75% (for Term Loan A Facility) or 5.375% (for Term Loan B Facility).  The interest rates applicable to the Revolving Credit Facility is based on a fluctuating rate of interest of an adjusted LIBOR plus a borrowing margin of 4.75%.  The interest rate applicable to the unused commitment for the Revolving Credit Facility was initially 0.50%.  Since March 2016, the interest margins and unused commitment fee on the Revolving Credit Facility have been subject to a leveraged based pricing grid.

The Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility contains a number of covenants that, among other things, limit the ability of Lannett and its restricted subsidiaries to: incur more indebtedness; pay dividends; redeem stock or make other distributions of equity; make investments; create restrictions on the ability of Lannett’s restricted subsidiaries that are not Subsidiary Guarantors to pay dividends to Lannett or make intercompany transfers; create negative pledges; create liens; transfer or sell assets; merge or consolidate; enter into sale leasebacks; enter into certain transactions with Lannett’s affiliates; and prepay or amend the terms of certain indebtedness.

The Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility contains a financial performance covenant that is triggered when the aggregate principal amount of outstanding Revolving Credit Facility and outstanding letters of credit as of the last day of the most recent fiscal quarter is greater than 30% of the aggregate commitments under the Revolving Credit Facility.  The covenant provides that Lannett shall not permit its first lien net senior secured leverage ratio as of the last day of any four consecutive fiscal quarters (i) from and after December 31, 2015, to be greater than 4.25:1.00 (ii) from and after December 31, 2017 to be greater than 3.75:1.00 and (iii) from and after December 31, 2019 to be greater than 3.25:1.00.

The Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility also contains a financial performance covenant for the benefit of the Term Loan A Facility lenders which provides that Lannett shall not permit its net senior secured leverage ratio as of the last day of any four consecutive fiscal quarters (i) prior to December 31, 2017, to be greater than 4.25:1.00, (ii) as of December 31, 2017 and prior to December 31, 2019 to be greater than 3.75:1.00 and (iii) as of December 31, 2019 and thereafter to be greater than 3.25:1.00.

49

Table of Contents

The Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility also contains certain affirmative covenants, including financial and other reporting requirements.

Cody Mortgage

Realty owns land and a building which is being leased to Cody Labs.  Realty has a mortgage loan with the First National Bank of Cody related to its land and building.  As of June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2016, the effective rate was 4.5% per annum.  The mortgage is collateralized by the land and building with a net book value of $1.4 million.  As of June 30, 2017, $735 thousand is outstanding under the mortgage loan, of which $147 thousand is classified as currently due.

Other Liquidity Matters

Material Suppliers

During the renewal term of the JSP Distribution Agreement, the Company is required to use commercially reasonable efforts to purchase minimum dollar quantities of JSP products.  There is no guarantee that the Company will continue to meet the minimum purchase requirement for Fiscal 2018 and thereafter.  If the Company does not meet the minimum purchase requirements, JSP’s sole remedy is to terminate the agreement.

Cody Expansion

In January 2017, the Company announced a $50 million expansion plan in conjunction with Forward Cody to expand operations in Cody, WY.

Future Acquisitions

We are continuously evaluating the potential for product and company acquisitions as a part of our future growth strategy.  In conjunction with a potential acquisition, the Company may utilize current resources or seek additional sources of capital to finance any such acquisition, which could have an impact on future liquidity.

We may also from time to time depending on market conditions and prices, contractual restrictions, our financial liquidity and other factors, seek to prepay outstanding debt or repurchase our outstanding debt through open market purchases, privately negotiated purchases, or otherwise.  The amounts involved in any such transactions, individually or in the aggregate, may be material and may be funded from available cash or from additional borrowings.

50

Table of Contents

Contractual Obligations

The following table represents annual contractual obligations as of June 30, 2017:

Long-term debt and interest on obligations amounts above primarily relate to the Company’s Amended Senior Secured Credit Facility.  Refer to Note 11 “Long-Term Debt” for additional information.

Interest on obligations was calculated based on interest rates in effect at June 30, 2017.

The purchase obligations above is primarily due to the JSP Distribution Agreement.  If the minimum purchase requirement is not met, JSP has the right to terminate the contract within 60 days of Lannett’s failure to meet the requirement.  If JSP terminates the contract, Lannett does not pay any fee, but could lose its exclusive distribution rights in the United States.  If Lannett’s management believes that it is not in the Company’s best interest to fulfill the minimum purchase requirements, it can also terminate the contract without any penalty.  If either party were to terminate the purchase agreement, there would be a significant impact on the financial position, results of operations and operating cash flows of the Company.  See Note 21 “Material Contracts with Suppliers” to our Consolidated Financial Statements for more information on the terms, conditions and financial impact of the JSP Distribution Agreement.

Operating lease obligations primarily relate to a 116,000 square foot leased warehouse in Seymour, Indiana as well as a 25 year lease with Forward Cody, which commenced on April 2015.

Research and Development Arrangements

In the normal course of business, the Company has entered into certain research and development and other arrangements.  As part of these arrangements, the Company has agreed to certain contingent payments which generally become due and payable only upon the achievement of certain developmental, regulatory, commercial and/or other milestones.  In addition, under certain arrangements, we may be required to make royalty payments based on a percentage of future sales, or other metric, for products currently in development in the event that the Company begins to market and sell the product.  Due to the inherent uncertainty related to these developmental, regulatory, commercial and/or other milestones, it is unclear if the Company will ever be required to make such payments.  As such, these contingencies are not reflected in the expected cash requirements for Contractual Obligations in the table above.

Prospects for the Future

Over the last several years, we have grown to be a formidable generic drug company.  We have earned the respect of our customers by our continuous growth in product offerings and our extraordinary service as a reliable supplier.  The Company’s strong regulatory record and the ability to respond to our customers’ needs make our Company a desirable supplier.  In 2016, we won the prestigious Diana Award for Best Generic Manufacturer from the Healthcare Distribution Alliance.

The Company is strengthening and building momentum to grow within the generic pharmaceutical industry organically and through mergers and acquisitions.  The acquisitions of Silarx and KUPI demonstrates our ability to grow through M&A.

One initiative at the core of the Company’s long term strategy is our plan to vertically integrate our supply chain.  Acquired in 2007, we continue leveraging Cody Labs.  In July 2008, the DEA granted Cody Labs a license to directly import concentrated poppy straw for extraction into opioid-based active pharmaceutical ingredients (“APIs”) such as Morphine Base, Hydromorphone, Hydrocodone and Oxycodone, for use in various dosage forms for pain management.  The value of this license comes from the successful development of patentable processes.  Cody Labs has filed and received numerous patents using their expertise in API development and manufacture.  Our technical skills allow the Company to perform in a market with high barriers to entry and limited foreign and domestic competition.

Because of this vertical integration, the Company has direct control of those APIs manufactured by Cody.  In this fashion we can avoid increased costs, add to the Company’s overall margins and avoid supply chain interruptions associated with buying APIs from third-party manufacturers. The Company can also leverage this vertical integration not only for direct supply of opioid-based APIs, but also for the manufacture of non-opioid-based controlled drugs such as Cocaine HCl. 

51

Table of Contents

In January 2017, the Company announced a $50 million expansion to our Cody Labs’ facilities.

The Company believes that demand for controlled substances and pain management drugs, having grown from $3 billion in 2005 to over $31 billion today, will continue based upon the “Baby Boomer” demographics.  By concentrating additional resources in the development of opioid-based APIs and dosage forms, as well as drugs used to treat addiction, the Company is well-positioned to take advantage of this opportunity. The Company is currently vertically integrated on three products, with several others in various stages of development.

One product that the Company manufactures is a brand drug for use in nasal surgery.  Our C-Topical® Solution brand of cocaine hydrochloride involves the successful patented synthetic process developed by Cody. This product is being manufactured and marketed under the product name C-Topical® Solution. This product is an analgesic topical solution, with vasoconstriction as a side effect, for use primarily by ear, nose and throat physicians during surgical procedures. This product represents the Company’s first foray into the brand market.  Currently, we have completed the Phase III study and our CRO is assembling the data that Lannett’s regulatory department will use to file our New Drug Application.  As the Company continues to invest in and focus on process and manufacturing optimization, Cody Labs will continue to be an important part of our future growth plan.

Selling brand versus generic products requires a dedicated sales force to detail and educate physicians on the product.  The Company strongly believes that C-Topical®, once FDA has granted approval, will be an important contributor to total revenue, with higher than average profit margins as a result of vertical integration.  The Company’s strategic goal is to continue investing in controlled substance product development.  Revenues from manufactured products derived from controlled substances carry higher-than-average gross margins.

In addition to focusing on the development and manufacture of opioid-based APIs and dosage forms, the Company has made a decision to develop products which require a paragraph four (“P-IV”) certification when filing the ANDA. A P-IV certification is required when an ANDA is submitted for a product for which the innovator’s patent has not yet expired. The certification must state whether the patent on the reference listed drug (“RLD”) is being challenged on grounds of it being invalid, or if the patent is being circumvented.  This path to product approval represents an opportunity for our Company, because we do not have to wait until a particular patent expires to potentially enter the market.  Secondly, if our Company is the first-to-file a P-IV certification on a product and we successfully invalidate or circumvent the patent, the FDA may grant 180 days of market exclusivity.  This allows us to be the sole competitor to the brand currently on the market for six months unless the innovator company sells an AG.  During this market exclusivity period, we could capture a significant portion of the market from the brand company at reasonably higher prices than our older products.

The Company filed its first ANDA with a P-IV certification in Fiscal 2013.  As of June 30, 2017, we have 9 paragraph IV certifications pending with the FDA.  Three of the P-IV certifications are currently being challenged.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to the Zomig® nasal spray product, AstraZeneca AB, AstraZeneca UK Limited and Impax Laboratories, Inc. filed two patent infringement complaints against the Company in July 2014.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to Thalomid®, Celgene Corporation and Children’s Medical Center Corporation filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in January 2015.  In response to our P-IV certification with respect to Suprep®, Braintree Laboratories, Inc. filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in March 2017.  Refer to Note 12 “Legal, Regulatory Matters and Contingencies” for further information on the current status of the aforementioned P-IV challenges.

The Company has a business development group focused on mergers, acquisitions and other strategic alliances.  The Company is party to supply and development agreements with JSP, Summit Bioscience LLC, HEC Pharm Group, Pharma Pass II LLC and various other international and domestic companies.  The Company is currently in negotiations of similar agreements with other companies and is actively seeking additional strategic partnerships, through which it will market and distribute products manufactured in-house or by third parties.  The Company plans to continue evaluating potential merger and acquisition opportunities as well as product acquisitions that are a strategic fit and accretive to the business.

After we closed upon the KUPI acquisition, we established a very aggressive integration plan.  Our integration plans are moving swiftly and we will be benefitting from the synergies created through integration.

The FDA inspected our overseas pharmacokinetic subsidiary Darmantest Laboratory as well as Firmplace, a joint-venture stability lab this fall.  Both Darmantest and Firmplace passed inspection.  These operations may result in lower costs for stability and bioequivalency studies in the future.

52

Table of Contents

Critical Accounting Policies

The preparation of our consolidated financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States and the rules and regulations of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission requires the use of estimates and assumptions.  A listing of the Company’s significant accounting policies are detailed in Note 2 “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”  A subsection of these accounting policies have been identified by management as “Critical Accounting Policies.”  Critical accounting policies are those which require management to make estimates using assumptions that were uncertain at the time the estimates were made and for which the use of different assumptions, which reasonably could have been used, could have a material impact on the financial condition or results of operations.

Management has identified the following as “Critical Accounting Policies”: Revenue Recognition, Inventories, Income Taxes, Business Combinations, Valuation of Long-Lived Assets, including Goodwill and Intangible Assets, In-Process Research and Development and Share-based Compensation.

Revenue Recognition

The Company recognizes revenue when title and risk of loss have transferred to the customer and provisions for estimates, including rebates, promotional adjustments, price adjustments, returns, chargebacks and other potential adjustments are reasonably determinable.  The Company also considers all other relevant criteria specified in Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 104, Topic No. 13, “Revenue Recognition,” in determining when to recognize revenue.

When revenue is recognized, a simultaneous adjustment to gross sales is made for chargebacks, rebates, returns, promotional adjustments and other potential adjustments.  These provisions are primarily estimated based on historical experience, future expectations, contractual arrangements with wholesalers and indirect customers and other factors known to management at the time of accrual.  Accruals for provisions are presented in the Consolidated Financial Statements as a reduction to gross sales with the corresponding reserve presented as a reduction of accounts receivable or included as rebates payable.  The reserves presented as a reduction of accounts receivable totaled $175.8 million and $176.1 million at June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2016, respectively.  Rebates payable at June 30, 2017 and June 30, 2016 included $44.6 million and $21.9 million, respectively, for certain rebate programs, primarily related to Medicare Part D, Medicaid and certain sales allowances and other adjustments paid to indirect customers.

The following table identifies the activity and ending balances of each major category of revenue reserve for fiscal years 2017, 2016 and 2015: