b'that the complaint pleaded facts supporting a GAAPthat Perrigos disclosure in the 10 Q that the scope of violation by Perrigo that would render the companysliability cannot be quantified but could be material financial disclosures presumptively misleading, becausefailed to satisfy this duty. With respect to scienter, the there was a reasonable possibility, after the Irish Taxcourt held that by November 2018, Perrigos duty to Authority informed Perrigo of its audit, that the compa- disclose under GAAP requirements was obvious and, ny would face a material tax liability. However, the courtas a result, the complaint raised a strong inference held that the complaint failed to adequately plead sci- that Perrigos failure to [disclose the loss contingency] enter with respect to these earlier disclosures becausewas highly unreasonable, representing an extreme plaintiffs failed to raise a strong inference that Perrigodeparture from the standards of ordinary care. The was reckless in failing to realize the likelihood that thecourt therefore permitted claims against the company Irish Tax Authority would reject Perrigos tax positionand certain individual defendants who had received the after the audit. Findings Letter and signed the November 2018 10-Q With respect to plaintiffs allegations concerning Perrigosto proceed. The court dismissed the claims against November 2018 10-Q, after the Irish Tax Authority hadPerrigos former CEO, holding that plaintiffs failed toadvised the company of its position that Perrigo calcu- set forth specific allegations against him.lated its tax liability incorrectly and owed an additionalOn September 25, 2020, lead plaintiffs motion for class 1.6 billion, the court held that the company had a clearcertification was granted. The case is now in the discov-duty under GAAP to incur, and under the securitiesery phase.laws, to disclose, a loss contingency. The court held 35'