losses, including substantial damages, fines, civil or criminal penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies. We intend to vigorously prosecute and/or defend these matters, as appropriate, however, from time to time, we may settle or otherwise resolve these matters on terms and conditions that we believe are in our best interests. Resolution of any or all claims, investigations, and legal proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and/or cash flows in any given accounting period or on our overall financial condition.
Some of these matters with which we are involved are described below, and unless otherwise disclosed, we are unable to predict the outcome of the matter or to provide an estimate of the range of reasonably possible material losses. We record accruals for loss contingencies to the extent we conclude it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.
From time to time, we are also involved in other pending proceedings for which, in our opinion based upon facts and circumstances known at the time, either the likelihood of loss is remote or any reasonably possible loss associated with the resolution of such proceedings is not expected to be material to our results, and therefore remain undisclosed. If and when any reasonably possible losses associated with the resolution of such other pending proceedings, in our opinion, become material, we will disclose such matters.
Furthermore, like all pharmaceutical manufacturers, we are periodically exposed to product liability claims. The prevalence of these claims could limit our coverage under future insurance policies or cause those policies to become more expensive, which could harm our business, financial condition, and operating results. Recent trends in the product liability and director and officer insurance markets is to exclude matters related to certain classes of drugs, such as opioids. Our policies have been subject to such exclusions which place further potential risk of financial loss on us.
Legal fees for litigation-related matters are expensed as incurred and included in the consolidated statements of operations under the selling, general, and administrative expense line item.
Commercial Litigation
In November of 2017, we were served with a complaint filed by Arbor Pharmaceuticals, LLC, in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. The complaint alleges false advertising and unfair competition in violation of Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, Section 1125(a) of Title 15 of the United States Code, and Minnesota State law, under the premise that we sold an unapproved Erythromycin Ethylsuccinate (“EES”) product during the period between September 27, 2016 and November 2, 2018. The complaint seeks a trial by jury and monetary damages (inclusive of actual and consequential damages, treble damages, disgorgement of ANI profit, and legal fees) of an unspecified amount. Discovery in this action closed on March 31, 2019. Trial is currently expected to be in August 2021. In light of the significant disagreement over the facts and legal theories in this case which will be determined at trial, we are unable to predict or reasonably estimate the potential loss or effect on our operations at this time. We have not established any reserves related to this action and it is not covered by insurance. We believe the action is without merit and continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously. Any adverse outcome in this case could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.
On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the Company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers of the drug Bystolic. On December 23, 2020, six individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger, Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company. On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended complaints. All amended complaints are substantively identical. The plaintiffs in these actions allege that, beginning in 2012, Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen, Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors, subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named