ALPHARMA INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET
(In thousands)
(Unaudited)

See notes to the consolidated condensed financial statements.

ALPHARMA INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS
(In thousands, except per share data)
(Unaudited)

See notes to the consolidated condensed financial statements.

ALPHARMA INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
(In thousands of dollars)
(Unaudited)

See notes to the consolidated condensed financial statements.

1. General

     At March 31, 2003, the Company has stock-based employee compensation plans. The Company accounts for those plans under the recognition and measurement principles of APB Opinion No. 25, Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees, and related Interpretations. No stock-based employee compensation cost is reflected in net income, as all options granted under those plans had an exercise price equal to the market value of the underlying common stock on the date of the grant. The following table illustrates the effect on net income and earnings per share if the Company had applied the fair value recognition provisions of FASB Statement No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation", to stock-based employee compensation.

     The Company estimated the fair value, as of the date of grant, of options outstanding in the plan using the Black-Scholes option pricing model with the following assumptions:

     The risk-free interest rates for 2003 and 2002 were based upon U.S. Treasury instrument rates with maturity approximating the expected term. The weighted average interest rate in 2003 and 2002 amounted to 2.9% and 4.5%, respectively. The weighted average fair value of options granted during the quarters ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 with exercise prices equal to fair market value on the date of grant was $8.42 and $11.00, respectively.

        Based on the above actions, combined with operating profit and cash flow currently forecasted for 2003, the Company fully expects to comply with these covenants throughout 2003. During 2002, the FDA conducted reviews of the Company's Baltimore and Elizabeth manufacturing facilities. In connection with these reviews, the Company was issued several comments included in Form 483's. As a result, the Company has responded to the FDA and is implementing an extensive remediation plan expected to be completed by mid-2004 and cost approximately $38,000. Cumulative remediation spending through March 31, 2003 was approximately $10,000. The total cost and timing of the remediation plan may change based upon the FDA responses. Furthermore, additional assessments performed by the Company pursuant to either or both of the plans or in response to FDA comments may lead to either additional expense, additional capital expenditure for plant improvements, product recalls or revenue reduction related to further decreases in production levels. The Company's 2003 operating profit forecast assumes corrective actions and production levels at the two USHP plants consistent with its expectations based upon presently known facts and circumstances. Significant deviation from the Company's remediation plan could significantly impact the Company's ability to comply with the 2003 covenants. The Company believes it has the ability to further reduce operating or capital expenditures and sufficient sources of funds such that debt could be further reduced if additional actions become necessary to comply with the covenants. The Company continues to review options, including price increases, asset sales and organizational and business structure changes to reduce its cost base and improve profitability and cash flow. Certain of these actions may require the consent of the parties to the credit facility.

     Included at March 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002 are raw materials totaling approximately $4,422 related to a product which is subject to regulatory approval and litigation (see Note 10).

     Inventories are stated at the lower of cost or market value. Effective January 1, 2003, the Company changed from the last-in first-out (LIFO) method to the first-in first-out (FIFO) method to account for certain of its United States USHP inventories. The method was changed in part to achieve a better matching of revenues and expenses. While a change from the LIFO method to the FIFO methods requires retroactive application to the financial statements, the change was not material to the consolidated financial statements of the Company for any of the periods presented as the inventory values computed under the LIFO method approximated the inventory values computed under the FIFO method. The FIFO method, or methods that approximate FIFO, are now used to determine cost for all inventories of the Company.

4.      Long-Term Debt

Long-term debt consists of the following:

      The 2001 Credit Facility has several financial covenants including a total debt to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") ratio, senior secured debt to EBITDA, fixed charage coverage ratio and an interest coverage ratio (see Note 2).

      In addition to financial covenants, the 2001 Credit Facility has a number of non-financial provisions including a requirement that AL Industrier ("ALI") maintain control over the Company. ALI currently beneficially owns all of the Company's Class B shares which carries the right to elect a majority of the Company's directors. The continuation of ALI's control of the Company is subject to the unilateral actions of ALI and the maintenance by ALI of certain collateral value under ALI's bank loan agreement (the "ALI Facility") (which includes a computation based, in part, on the agreed upon value of the Company's Class B shares beneficially owned by ALI). Assuming the value of the other collateral assets remains constant, to the extent the ALI Facility is at its maximum loan value of $33,000, if the value of the Company's Class B shares falls below approximately $3.50 per share (based upon the per share market value of the Company's Class A shares), the ALI Facility lenders could call a default. In the event of a default or if Industrier does not fully pay or refinance its bank loan at its June 30, 2003 maturity date, Industrier's bankers may act to enforce their security over the shares in the ALI subsidiaries which hold the Company's Class B shares. Such action would change the beneficial ownership of the Company's Class B shares, unless ALI takes steps to repay the ALI Facility or cure the default in a manner satisfactory to the ALI Facility lenders, prior to such action. A change in beneficial ownership of the Company's Class B shares would constitute a change in control and a default under the 2001 Credit Facility. Other default provisions under the ALI Facility could result in a similar effect under the 2001 Credit Agreement.

      In accordance with Financial Accounting Standard No. 145, "Rescission of FASB Statements No. 4, 44, and 64, Amendment of FASB Statement No. 13, and Technical Corrections", the Company has reclassified amounts recorded as extraordinary expense for the early extinguishment of debt of $727 ($443 after tax) in the first quarter of 2002 to Other expense, net.

     In April 2003, in connection with the private placement offering of the 8 5/8% Senior Notes, the Company amended the 2001 Credit Facility to exclude from the definition of EBITDA certain costs incurred in connection with the issuance of the 8 5/8% Notes, including the placement fee, to permit the change in accounting method discussed in Note 3, to permit the 8 5/8% Notes to be an unsecured Senior debt obligation of the Company and to change the Senior debt to EBITDA covenant to a Senior unsecured debt to EBITDA covenant.

      A reconciliation of weighted average shares outstanding for basic to diluted weighted average shares outstanding is as follows:

      The amount of dilution attributable to the stock options, determined by the treasury stock method, depends on the average market price of the Company's common stock for each period. At March 31, 2003 and 2002 stock options to purchase approximately 2,300,000 and 2,100,000 shares, respectively, were not included in the computation of diluted EPS because the option price was greater than the average market price of the Class A Common shares.

     For the three months ended March 31, 2003, the effects of the 05 and 06 Notes (convertible into 1,196,310 shares) were not included in the calculation of diluted EPS because the result was antidilutive. For the three months ended March 31, 2002 stock options to purchase approximately 90,000 shares, and the effects of the 05 and 06 Notes (convertible into 3,809,343 shares) were not included in the calculation of diluted EPS because the result was antidilutive.

      The numerator for the calculation of basic EPS is net income (loss) for all periods. The numerator for the calculation of diluted EPS includes an add back for interest expense and debt cost amortization, net of income tax effects, related to the 05 and 06 Notes when applicable.

      A reconciliation of net income (loss) used for basic to diluted EPS is as follows:

6.   Goodwill and Intangible Assets:

     Intangible assets consist principally of products rights, including regulatory and/or marketing approvals by relevant government authorities. All intangible assets are subject to amortization. Annual amortization expense for the years 2003 through 2007 is currently estimated to be approximately $34,800, $34,100, $31,400, $29,100 and $28,400, respectively.

      Identifiable intangible assets are required to be tested for impairment whenever changes in events or circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable. In Germany, legislation proposed for introduction in 2003 would remove certain products from eligibility for government patient reimbursement, including one product important to the Company's German operations, Pentalong. If the legislation is ultimately approved in its present form and removes Pentalong from eligibility for reimbursement, the Company will be required to reevaluate the carrying value of intangible assets totaling approximately $17,000. The Company is attempting to have Pentalong included as a product eligible for reimbursement but cannot predict whether it will be successful.

     Intangible assets and accumulated amortization are summarized as follows:

     The changes in the carrying amount of goodwill attributable to the Company's reportable segments for the quarter ended March 31, 2003, are as follows:

     As required in the fourth quarter of 2002, the Company performed the required annual test for impairment. The assessment was made in conjunction with the budgeting and long-range planning by each segment. This assessment will be conducted as required in the fourth quarter of 2003 or if interim events or circumstances warrant.

7.      Reorganization, Refocus and other Actions

     The Company has substantially completed its reorganization and refocus efforts. The following table presents cash activity in the severance and closure and exit costs related accruals:

8.      Supplemental Data

9.      Reporting Comprehensive Income

      SFAS 130, "Reporting Comprehensive Income" requires foreign currency translation adjustments and certain other items to be included in other comprehensive loss. Total comprehensive income (loss) amounted to approximately $5,021 and $(35,951) for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

      The components of accumulated other comprehensive loss for the Company include:

10.      Contingent Liabilities and Litigation

     A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. This class action has been brought on behalf of all persons who acquired the Company's securities between April 28, 1999 and October 30, 2000. The Company is named as a defendant along with two of its board members, one of whom is an officer, and two of its former officers. The class action complaint alleges that, among other things, the plaintiffs were damaged when they acquired the Company's securities because, as a result of (1) alleged irregularities in the Company's Animal Health business in Brazil, (2) allegedly improper revenue recognition practices and (3) the October 2000 revision of its financial results for 1999 and 2000, the Company's previously issued financial statements were materially false and misleading, thereby artificially inflating the price of the Company's securities. The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts. The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on legal grounds and the District Court granted its motion with prejudice as to all defendants. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration with the District Court and the District Court affirmed its earlier dismissal. The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company intends to vigorously defend this appeal. Additionally, the Company has filed a claim on its own behalf and on behalf of each of the named individual defendants under its directors' and officers' insurance policies and believes that insurance coverage exists to the extent of the policy limits for the costs incurred in defending the claims and any adverse judgment or settlement, subject to the terms, conditions and exclusions of the relevant insurance policy. Based upon the facts as presently known, the Company does not believe that it is likely that the class action will result in liability which will be material to the Company's financial position. However, it is not possible for the Company to conclude definitively that resolution of the lawsuit will not be material to the Company's financial position or its results of operations or cash flows in the quarter or year in which it occurs.

     In response to the Company's submission to the FDA of its ANDAs filed under paragraph IV for gabapentin capsules and tablets, the Company was sued on June 11, 1998 with respect to capsules and on December 12, 1999 with respect to tablets, by Warner-Lambert Company, which is now owned by Pfizer Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey for alleged patent infringement under two U.S. patents. The ANDAs submitted seek FDA approval to market the Company's gabapentin capsules and tablets prior to the expiration of Pfizer's patents. In the Company's ANDAs, the Company certified to Pfizer and the FDA that its proposed generic gabapentin capsules and tablets will not infringe the patents and that the patents are believed to be invalid or unenforceable. In the litigation concerning the Company's gabapentin capsules, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the two patents, which was subsequently denied. The Company filed in the tablet litigation, and renewed in the capsule litigation, the Company's motion of summary judgment of non-infringement on Pfizer's patents. These motions are under consideration by the District Court. Discovery is complete and the case is awaiting trial.  During the lawsuits regarding gabapentin tablets and capsules, Pfizer received a third patent covering a gabapentin formulation with low chloride levels. After learning of this patent, the Company certified to the FDA under paragraph IV that the Company's proposed gabapentin capsule and tablet, as disclosed in its previously filed ANDAs, do not infringe this patent and this patent is invalid or unenforceable. In June 2000, Pfizer sued the Company in the District Court for the District of New Jersey for patent infringement under this patent. The Company submitted to the court a motion for summary judgment that neither the capsule nor tablet product infringes this patent. The Company has also filed several summary judgment motions for invalidity of the patent. These motions are under consideration by the Court and have not yet been ruled on. Discovery has closed and a pre-trial conference was held on April 24, 2003. No trial date has been set.

     Should the Company be permitted to market gabapentin prior to the expiration of the Pfizer patents, it expects to apply to the FDA for access to the 180 day period of generic marketing exclusivity, which is generally awarded to the generic competitor who is first in time to file a paragraph IV certification against the relevant patents of the innovator. In August 2002, the Company sued the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to clarify its rights to exclusivity and for a ruling that it properly submitted a statement of inapplicable use to one of the Orange Book listed patents. In December 2002, the court ruled that Purepac's statement of inapplicable use was appropriate. The court deferred to the FDA to decide the impact of the court's ruling on the subject of exclusivity. On January 28, 2003, the Company received confirmation from the FDA that it has secured eligibility for 180 day market exclusivity on gabapentin 100 mg, 300 mg and 400 mg capsules. Exclusivity for this product will be triggered by the earlier of either Purepac's commercial marketing of gabapentin or a court decision that finds the relevant Pfizer patent invalid or not infringed. While the FDA ruling does not address the tablet form of gabapentin, the Company expects the FDA position on market exclusivity for the 600 mg and 800 mg gabapentin tablets to be consistent with its position on capsules. The FDA's ruling is a significant positive event for the Company. A court action would be required to overrule the FDA's decision and for the Company to lose its eligibility for 180 day market exclusivity. On February 14, 2003, Torpharm, a competitor with an ANDA for gabapentin capsules, filed a lawsuit against the FDA in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking final approval for its gabapentin capsules ANDA and abolition of the Company's eligibility for the 180 day exclusivity period. The Company intervened in the lawsuit seeking to maintain its right to exclusivity. On April 25, 2003, the Court ruled in favor of the Company that the Company is eligible for 180 days of exclusivity. While the Court ruling does not address the tablet form of gabapentin, the Company expects to be eligible for 180 days of exclusivity on the 600 mg and 800 mg gabapentin tablet. However, the Company can give no assurance that it will ultimately benefit from an exclusivity period.

     In anticipation of the launch of gabapentin, the Company entered into a supply agreement with the manufacturer of the active pharmaceutical ingredient (the "API") of gabapentin under which the Company has acquired API inventory. The terms of the Company's agreement with the API supplier will require the payment to the supplier of a portion of the Company's net sales of finished dose gabapentin product during any period of exclusivity ("Net Sales Split"). As of March 31, 2003, the Company had paid $4,422 in partial payment of inventory on hand. The Company will make an additional payment of $4,422 for on hand inventory in 2003 and a third payment of $8,225 in 2004. A further payment of $8,225 will be due only upon final FDA approval of the Company's marketing authorization for gabapentin. All of these payments reduce the Net Sales Split on a dollar for dollar basis. The Company cannot predict the outcome of the gabapentin litigation; however, in the event of an unfavorable outcome, or other factors preventing the Company from selling the finished product, the Company will reassess the net realizable value of the API inventory, and may incur a charge to write-down API inventory on hand to its net realizable value and record any required payments under the supply agreement. The maximum charge could be approximately $25,000 based on inventory currently on hand. The Company has no present obligation to purchase additional API inventory.

     The Company is engaged in disputes with several suppliers, customers and distributors regarding certain obligations with respect to contracts under which the Company obtains raw materials and under which the Company supplies finished products. Given the fact that these disputes will most probably be resolved over more than one year, management does not believe that the disputes in the aggregate will be material to the Company's financial position. However, they could be material to the Company's results of operations or cash flows in the period in which resolution occurs.

     In June 2002, the SEC notified the Company that it had commenced a formal investigation of the circumstances surrounding the 2000 and 2001 restatements of its financial statements. While deposition discovery is underway, the proceeding is in its early stages. The SEC has stated that the commencement of this investigation is not an indication that the SEC presently believes that a violation of any applicable laws has occurred.

     During 2001 and 2003, the Company received inspection observations ("483 Reports") from the FDA at its USHP facilities in Baltimore and Elizabeth, respectively. The 483 Reports listed alleged deviations from, primarily, current Good Manufacturing Practices ("cGMPs"). The 2001 inspection at Baltimore resulted in an allegation by the FDA that the Company was not in compliance with a 1992 Consent Decree requiring general compliance with cGMPs. In July 2002, the FDA conducted a follow-up inspection to the 2001 inspection of the Baltimore facility and in August 2002 issued a re-inspection report. In response to the 2002 FDA report, the Company submitted a comprehensive corrective action plan to the FDA in October of 2002. The FDA has not formally commented on the Company's corrective action plan. The Company expects the FDA to respond to its proposed plan in 2003. The Company has begun upgrading plant procedures at the Baltimore plant in accordance with the plan and has provided written monthly updates to the FDA. The plan anticipates substantial completion of the corrective actions by mid-2004. The estimated total cost for substantial completion of the Baltimore corrective actions is approximately $30,000. As part of the corrective action plan, product recalls were conducted in 2002 and production at the Baltimore facility reduced. This reduction in production has had an effect on earnings in 2002 and will have a continuing effect in 2003.

     Between November, 2002 and January, 2003, the FDA conducted a routine general inspection at the Company's Elizabeth plant. As a result of the inspection, the Company received a 483 Report from the FDA on January 15, 2003. The Company submitted a comprehensive response on February 5, 2003 and is currently taking actions to address the observations made by the FDA, in accordance with the response. The Company anticipates completion of these actions during or before February 2004. Certain product recalls were included in the corrective action plan which were recorded in 2002. The corrective action plan contemplates continued output at 2002 levels. The estimated total cost of the Elizabeth corrective actions is approximately $8,000.

     The total cost and timing of both the Baltimore and Elizabeth corrective action plans may change based upon the FDA response which has not yet been received and other factors.

      The FDA compliance status of each of the Baltimore and Elizabeth facilities has had and will continue to have the effect of delaying new product approvals at each of these facilities until the FDA is satisfied that sufficient progress has been made to achieve compliance with cGMP's with respect to these facilities. Product approval delays at any one of our facilities will not necessarily have an effect on product approvals at our other facilities.

      As permitted under Delaware law, the Company has agreements whereby we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was serving, at our request in such capacity. The term of the indemnification period is for the officer's or director's lifetime. The maximum potential amount of future payments the Company could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is unlimited; however, we have a Director and Officer insurance policy that limits our exposure. As a result of our insurance policy coverage, the Company believes the estimated fair value of these indemnification agreements is minimal. The Company has no liabilities recorded for these agreements as of March 31, 2003.

     The Company and its subsidiaries are, from time to time, involved in other litigation arising out of the ordinary course of business. It is the view of management, after consultation with counsel, that the ultimate resolution of all other pending suits should not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or results of operations of the Company.

11.     Transactions with AL Industrier (ALI)

      A.L. Industrier A.S ("ALI") is the beneficial owner of 100% of the outstanding shares of the Company's Class B Stock. The Class B Stock represents 23% of the total outstanding common stock as of March 31, 2003. ALI, a Norwegian company, is able to control the Company through its ability to elect more than a majority of the Board of Directors and to cast a majority of the votes in any non-class vote of he Company's stockholders.

     In January 2003, the Company divested its Norwegian vitamin business to Nopal, a subsidiary of ALI, for approximately $3,300. The divestiture was a transaction between companies under common control and accordingly, the gain on the sale was accounted for as capital transaction net of related taxes ($2,267 net increase to Additional Paid-in Capital). As required of all related party transactions, this sale was determined to be fair to the holders Class A Common Stock by the Company's Audit Committee.

12.     Business Segment Information

      The Company's businesses are organized in four reportable segments as follows; International Generics ("IG"), Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients ("API"), U.S. Human Pharmaceuticals ("USHP"), and Animal Health ("AH"). IG and API are managed by a single management team as part of Human Pharmaceuticals International ("HPI"). Segment data includes immaterial intersegment revenues which are eliminated in the consolidated accounts.

13.     Guarantor and Financial Information

     The following financial information is presented to segregate the parent and certain of its subsidiaries which are guarantors under the Senior Unsecured Notes due 2011 from non-guarantor subsidiaries. The consolidating financial information presents the consolidating balance sheet as of March 31, 2003 and December 31, 2002, and the related statements of operations and cash flows for the quarters ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 for:

·      Alpharma Inc. the parent;
·      the guarantor subsidiaries;
·      the nonguarantor subsidiaries; and
·      the Company on a consolidated basis.

     The information includes elimination entries necessary to consolidate Alpharma Inc., the parent, with guarantor and nonguarantor subsidiaries.

     Investments in subsidiaries are accounted for by the parent using the equity method of accounting. The guarantor and nonguarantor subsidiaries are presented on a combined basis. The principal elimination entries eliminate investments in subsidiaries and intercompany balances and transactions.

     Separate financial statements for the guarantor subsidiaries and the nonguarantor subsidiaries are not presented because management believes that such financial statements would not be meaningful to investors.

ALPHARMA INC.
Consolidating Balance Sheet
As of March 31, 2003
(in thousands)

ALPHARMA INC.
Consolidating Balance Sheet
As of December 31, 2002
(in thousands)

14.     Recent Accounting Pronouncements

     On December 31, 2002, the FASB issued Statement No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure". Statement 148 amends FASB Statement 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation", to provide alternative methods of transition to Statement 123's fair value method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. Statement 148 also amends the disclosure provisions of Statement 123 and APB Opinion No. 28, "Interim Financial Reporting", to require disclosure in the summary of significant accounting policies of the effects of an entity's accounting policy with respect to stock-based employee compensation on reported net income and earnings per share in annual and interim financial statements. While the Statement does not amend Statement 123 to require companies to account for employee stock options using the fair value method, the disclosure provisions of Statement 148 are applicable to all companies with stock-based employee compensation, regardless of whether they account for that compensation using the fair value method of Statement 123 or the intrinsic value method of Opinion 25. Statement 148's amendment of the transition and annual disclosure requirements of Statement 123 are effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2002. The Company adopted the disclosure provisions of FAS 148 as of December 31, 2002, and will continue to use the intrinsic value method of APB 25.

     In November 2002, FASB Interpretation No. 45 (FIN 45), "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others" was issued. FIN 45 elaborates on the disclosures to be made by a guarantor in its interim and annual financial statements about its obligations under certain guarantees that it has issued. It also clarifies that a guarantor is required to recognize, at the inception of a guarantee, a liability for the fair value of the obligation undertaken in issuing the guarantee. The initial recognition and initial measurement provisions of this Interpretation are applicable on a prospective basis to guarantees issued or modified after December 21, 2002. The required disclosures are effective for financial statements of interim or annual periods ending after December 15, 2002.

     In January 2003, the Emerging Issues Task Force (EITF) released EITF 00-21: "Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables". EITF 00-21 clarifies the timing and recognition of revenue from certain transactions that include the delivery and performance of multiple products or services. EITF 00-21 is effective for revenue arrangements entered into in fiscal periods beginning after June 15, 2003. The Company is currently reviewing the impact of this EITF.

      On April 30, 2003, the FASB issued FAS 149 "Amendment of Statement 133 on Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities" which amends Statement 133 for decisions made (1) as part of the Derivatives Implementation Group process that effectively required amendments to Statement 133, (2) in connection with other Board projects dealing with financial instruments, and (3) in connection with implementation issues raised in relation to the application of the definition of a derivative, in particular, the meaning of an initial net investment that is smaller than would be required for other types of contracts that would be expected to have a similar response to changes in market factors, the meaning of underlying, and the characteristics of a derivative that contains financing components. This Statement is effective for contracts entered into or modified after June 30, 2003, except for hedging relationships designated after June 30, 2003. The Company is currently assessing the impact of this statement on the Company's current hedging strategy.

      Total revenue increased $31.4 million (11.5%) in the three months ended March 31, 2003 compared to 2002. Operating income in 2003 was $28.1 million, an increase of $11.6 million compared to 2002. In 2002, the Company recorded a net loss of $31.5 million ($.69 per share) compared to net income of $7.9 million ($.15 per diluted share) in 2003. 2002 results include significant charges and expenses related to the required acquisition accounting for the Faulding Oral Pharmaceuticals Business ("OPB"), de-leveraging activities and severance related to reorganization and restructuring. See 2002 identified transactions.

The following summarizes revenues and operating income by segment:

      Revenues in USHP increased $10.6 million (9.4%) due to the increased pricing and volume gains in solid dose products partially offset by an unfavorable solid dose mix and liquid dose volume declines due to Baltimore remediation activities.

      Revenues in IG increased $14.2 million (20%) due primarily to translation of sales made in foreign currencies into the U.S. dollar. Excluding currency impacts, revenues grew approximately 2% as higher volume of products (9%) was substantially offset by price declines (7%), mainly in the United Kingdom.

Included in IG revenues are revenues for Pentalong, a product sold in Germany. Such revenues for the quarters ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 were $4.7 million and $4.5 million, respectively. For the full year 2002, Pentalong revenues totaled $20.1 million. Legislation proposed in Germany for introduction in 2003 would remove certain products from eligibility for government patient reimbursement, including Pentalong. The Company is attempting to have Pentalong included as a product eligible for reimbursement but cannot predict whether it will be successful.

      Revenues in API increased $11.5 million (59%) due approximately equally to volume increases in all major products, particularly vancomycin and price increases in selected products. Foreign currency translation also increased API revenues by approximately 5%. Animal Health revenues declined $3.5 million (5%) due to volume declines in the poultry markets and price reductions due to competition in swine and cattle markets.