UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K/A

þ		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the year ended December 31, 2007.

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

For the transition period from                      to                     .

MEDICIS PHARMACEUTICAL CORPORATION

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Delaware		52-1574808
(State of other jurisdiction		(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
of incorporation or organization)
7720 N. Dobson Road, Scottsdale, Arizona		85256-2740
(Address of principal executive office)		(Zip Code)
Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:		(602) 808-8800
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Class A common stock, $0.014 par value
New York Stock Exchange		Preference Share Purchase Rights
(Name of each exchange on which		(Title of each Class)
registered)

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the 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 þ 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 þ

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 þ 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 the registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form or any amendment to this Form 10-K/A 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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer þ		Accelerated filer o		Non-accelerated filer o		Smaller reporting company o
				(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes o No þ

The aggregate market value of the voting stock held on June 30, 2008 by non-affiliates of the registrant was $534,024,659 based on the closing price of $20.78 per share as reported on the New York Stock Exchange on June 30, 2008, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter (calculated by excluding all shares held by executive officers, directors and holders known to the registrant of five percent or more of the voting power of the registrant’s common stock, without conceding that such persons are “affiliates” of the registrant for purposes of the federal securities laws). As of November 3, 2008, there were 56,717,496 outstanding shares of Class A common stock.

Documents incorporated by reference:

Portions of the Proxy Statement for the registrant’s 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders (the “Proxy Statement”) are incorporated herein by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K/A to the extent stated herein.

 

 

EXPLANATORY NOTE

     On September 22, 2008, the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Medicis”, the “Company”, or as used in the context of “we”, “us” or “our”) concluded that our financial statements for the annual, transition and quarterly periods in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008 would likely need to be restated and should no longer be relied upon.

     This Amendment No. 1 (the “Form 10-K/A”) to our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007 (the “2007 10-K”) is being filed to restate our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006 (including the corresponding 2007 and 2006 interim periods), the six months ended December 31, 2005 and the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. Note 24 to our restated consolidated financial statements sets forth unaudited restated quarterly financial information for each of the eight quarters in the two years ended December 31, 2007. The restatement also affects periods prior to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The impact of the restatement on such prior periods is reflected in an adjustment to retained earnings as of July 1, 2004. In addition, we are concurrently filing Forms 10-Q/A to amend and restate our consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008.

     The restatement principally relates to an error in our interpretation and application of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 48, Revenue Recognition When Right of Return Exists (“SFAS 48”), as it applies to a component of our sales return reserve calculations. Management commenced a review and analysis of its accounting for sales return reserves after the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (the “PCAOB”) inspection of our independent public accounting firm’s, Ernst & Young LLP’s, audit of our 2007 financial statements. Based on the PCAOB inspection, Ernst & Young LLP informed management that the method of accounting for returns of short dated and expired goods in the periods covered by the financial statements was not in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, as the returns for expired product did not qualify for warranty or exchange accounting and, accordingly, under SFAS 48, the Company should have deferred the full sales price of the product for the amount of estimated returns. Management conducted a review of whether the reserve complied with SFAS 48 and whether the amounts involved were material under Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 99, Materiality (“SAB 99”), and Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 108, Considering Effects of Prior Misstatements When Quantifying Misstatements in Current Year Financial Statements (“SAB 108”), for one or more periods. Management determined that there was an error in its interpretation and application of SFAS 48 and that the adjustments necessary to properly state the sales returns reserve were material for the annual, transition and quarterly periods in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008. Accordingly, management recommended to the Audit Committee that a restatement was required.

     Our prior accounting method with respect to sales return reserves accrued estimated future returns of short-dated and expired products, which were expected to be replaced with similar products, at replacement cost, based on our view of the economic impact of returns on our business, rather than deferring the gross sales price. The replacement of short-dated and expired products, which was treated as a warranty or an exchange, was reserved for based on the estimated cost associated with the exchange. In the course of our review and analysis, we determined that, although the exchanged product was similar, it was not of the same quality, strictly due to dating, as we were replacing nearly-expired or expired product with newer, fresher product. Therefore, in accordance with SFAS 48, we have revised our reserve calculations to defer the gross sales value of the estimated product returns that were expected to be replaced with similar products. The revised reserve calculations were developed based on conditions that existed at the end of each reporting period and in certain cases were revised based on the Company’s actual return experience. Additionally, because of the impact of the changes in the sales returns reserve, we recorded adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals and have also reflected the related income tax effects of these adjustments. In addition, related to the modification of the reserve calculation methodology, the reserve for estimated future returns has been classified within current liabilities rather than as an allowance reducing accounts receivable.

     The restated consolidated financial statements include other adjustments, including adjustments related to conforming our historical accounting policies to current accounting policies, that were previously identified, but not previously recorded, as they were not material, either individually or in the aggregate. While none of these other adjustments is individually material, they are being made as part of the restatement process.

     The following tables set forth the effects of the restatement on selected line items within our previously reported consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, the transition period from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 (the “Transition Period”) and the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005, 2004 and 2003. The restatement has no impact on our cash flows. The following tables provide only a summary of the effects of the restatement, do not include all line items that have been impacted by the restatement and should be read in conjunction with the restated consolidated financial statements contained in Item 15 of Part IV of this amended report.

		Fiscal				Fiscal				Transition				Fiscal				Fiscal				Fiscal
		Year				Year				Period				Year				Year				Year
Net revenues(in		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended
millions)		12/31/07				12/31/06				12/31/05				6/30/05				6/30/04				6/30/03
As Reported		$	464.7			$	349.2			$	164.0			$	376.9			$	303.7			$	247.5
Adjustment			(7.3	)			44.0				1.3				(11.2	)			11.5				(37.2	)
As Restated		$	457.4			$	393.2			$	165.3			$	365.7			$	315.2			$	210.3

		Fiscal				Fiscal				Transition				Fiscal				Fiscal				Fiscal
Diluted net		Year				Year				Period				Year				Year				Year
income (loss) per		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended
share(in dollars)		12/31/07				12/31/06				12/31/05				6/30/05				6/30/04				6/30/03
As Reported		$	1.14			$	(1.39	)		$	0.76			$	1.01			$	0.52			$	0.84
Adjustment			(0.06	)			0.51				0.03				(0.09	)			0.06				(0.34	)
As Restated		$	1.08			$	(0.88	)		$	0.79			$	0.92			$	0.58			$	0.50

		Fiscal				Fiscal				Transition				Fiscal				Fiscal				Fiscal
		Year				Year				Period				Year				Year				Year
Working capital		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended
(in millions)		12/31/07				12/31/06				12/31/05				6/30/05				6/30/04				6/30/03
As Reported		$	460.1			$	356.9			$	692.5			$	600.1			$	666.7			$	576.8
Adjustment			(37.1	)			(33.8	)			(61.5	)			(69.2	)			(62.1	)			(62.0	)
As Restated		$	423.0			$	323.1			$	631.0			$	530.9			$	604.6			$	514.8

     In connection with the restatement, management has assessed the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures and has included revised disclosure in this Form 10-K/A under Item 9A of Part II, “Controls and Procedures.” Management identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting with respect to our interpretation and application of SFAS 48 as it applies to the calculation of sales return reserves, as described under Item 9A of Part II in Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting.” Solely as a result of this material weakness, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at a reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2007 and the date of this filing. As of the date of this Form 10-K/A, we have adopted a sales return reserve methodology that management believes complies with the requirements of SFAS 48. Management has taken and is taking steps, as described under Item 9A of Part II in “Remediation Steps to Address Material Weakness,” to remediate the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. We believe that, as a result of management’s in-depth review of its accounting processes, the utilization of external resources and the additional procedures management has implemented, there are no material inaccuracies or omissions of material fact in this Form 10-K/A and, to the

best of our knowledge, we believe that the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K/A fairly present in all material aspects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

     Consistent with good corporate governance, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors, working with its independent counsel and forensic accountants, conducted an independent inquiry into the matters giving rise to the Company’s need to restate its financial statements (the “Internal Inquiry”). After completing the Internal Inquiry, the Audit Committee concluded that the need to restate our consolidated financial statements was not the result of any fraud or intentional wrongdoing on the part of any of our directors, officers or other employees. The Audit Committee also noted that our independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, was aware of and discussed with us on several occasions in the past our methodology of accounting for sales return reserves. Neither the Company nor Ernst & Young LLP has previously identified the misinterpretation and misapplication of generally accepted accounting principles with respect to our sales return reserves prior to the PCAOB review, and Ernst & Young LLP expressed unqualified opinions on our consolidated financial statements and our internal control over financial reporting for each of the now-restated annual and transition periods. We have discussed this matter with the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and have committed to cooperating fully with the SEC in connection with any questions they may have.

     Because this Form 10-K/A sets forth the 2007 Form 10-K in its entirety, it includes items that have been changed as a result of the restatement and the items that are unchanged from the 2007 Form 10-K. Other than the amending of the disclosures relating to the restatement, this Form 10-K/A speaks as of the original filing date of the 2007 10-K and has not been updated to reflect other events occurring subsequent to the original filing date. This includes forward-looking statements and the portions of the Business section, Risk Factors and all other sections of this Form 10-K/A that were not directly impacted by the restatement, which should be read in their historical context. This Form 10-K/A should be read in conjunction with our Forms 10-Q/A for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008 and our Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008.

     The following items have been amended as a result of the restatement:

	•		Part I – Item 1. Business and Item 1A. Risk Factors
	•		Part II – Item 6. Selected Financial Data
	•		Part II – Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations
	•		Part II – Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data
	•		Part II – Item 9A. Controls and Procedures
	•		Part IV – Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules

     Note 2 to our restated consolidated financial statements discloses the nature of the restatement adjustments and details the impact of the restatement adjustments on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, the six months ended December 31, 2005, the unaudited six months ended December 31, 2004 and the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. In addition, Note 2 to the restated consolidated financial statements describes the effects of the restatement adjustments to opening retained earnings as of July 1, 2004, which reflects the impact of the restatement on periods prior to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. Information on the impact of the restatement on the fiscal years ended June 30, 2004 and June 30, 2003 is included in Item 6, Selected Financial Data, in Part II of this Form 10-K/A. Note 24 to our restated consolidated financial statements sets forth unaudited restated quarterly financial information for each of the eight quarters in the two years ended December 31, 2007. A discussion of the effects of the restatement for the quarterly periods during 2007 and 2006 can be found in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” under the section titled “Quarterly Effects of the Restatement.”

     We have not amended our Annual Reports on Form 10-K or Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q for periods affected by the restatement that ended prior to December 31, 2007, and the financial statements and related financial information contained in such reports should no longer be relied upon. However, all applicable amounts relating to

this restatement for such prior periods have been reflected in the consolidated financial statements and the related notes to the consolidated financial statements in this Form 10-K/A.

     Item 15 of Part IV of this Form 10-K/A has been amended to contain the currently-dated certifications from our principal executive officer and principal financial officer, as required by Section 302 and 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Ernst & Young LLP has dual dated their reports on the consolidated financial statements and internal control over financial reporting to the board of directors and stockholders with regard to Note 2 of the consolidated financial statements and the material weakness described previously and updated their consent to the date of this filing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I
Item 1. Business			7
Item 1A. Risk Factors			20
Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments			41
Item 2. Properties			41
Item 3. Legal Proceedings			42
PART II
Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities			44
Item 6. Selected Financial Data			46
Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations			51
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk			86
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data			87
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure			87
Item 9A. Controls and Procedures			87
Item 9B. Other Information			91
PART III
Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Registrant			91
Item 11. Executive Compensation			91
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management			91
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions			91
Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services			91
PART IV
Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules			92
EX-12
EX-21.1
EX-23.1
EX-31.1
EX-31.2
EX-32.1
EX-32.2

PART I

Item 1. Business

Change in Fiscal Year

     Effective December 31, 2005, we changed our fiscal year end from June 30 to December 31. This change was made to align our fiscal year end with other companies within our industry. This Form 10-K/A is intended to cover the audited calendar year January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, which we refer to as “2007.” We refer to the audited calendar year January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006 as “2006”. Comparative financial information to 2006 is provided in this Form 10-K/A with respect to the calendar year January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, which is unaudited and we refer to as “2005.” Additional audited information is provided with respect to the transition period July 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005, which we refer to as the “Transition Period.” We refer to the period beginning July 1, 2004 and ending June 30, 2005 as “fiscal 2005”.

Restatement

     We have amended and restated our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, the six months ended December 31, 2005 and the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The restatement principally relates to an error in our interpretation and application of SFAS 48 as it relates to a component of our sales return reserve calculations. Additionally, because of the impact of the changes in the sales returns reserve, we recorded adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals and have also reflected the related income tax effects of these adjustments. The restated consolidated financial statements include other adjustments, including adjustments related to conforming our historical accounting policies to current accounting policies, that were previously identified, but not previously recorded, as they were deemed not to be material, either individually or in the aggregate. While none of these other adjustments is individually material, they are being made as part of the restatement process. See Note 2 in the accompanying consolidated financial statements for further information regarding the restatement.

The Company

     We, together with our wholly owned subsidiaries, are a leading independent specialty pharmaceutical company focusing primarily on helping patients attain a healthy and youthful appearance and self-image through the development and marketing in the U.S. of products for the treatment of dermatological, aesthetic and podiatric conditions. We believe that the U.S. market for dermatological pharmaceutical sales exceeds $6 billion annually. According to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, a national not-for-profit organization for education and research in cosmetic plastic surgery, nearly 11.7 million cosmetic surgical and non-surgical procedures were performed in the United States during 2007, including approximately 9.6 million non-surgical cosmetic procedures. We also market products in Canada for the treatment of dermatological and aesthetic conditions.

     We have built our business by executing a four-part growth strategy: promoting existing brands, developing new products and important product line extensions, entering into strategic collaborations, and acquiring complementary products, technologies and businesses. Our core philosophy is to cultivate high integrity relationships of trust and confidence with the foremost dermatologists and podiatrists and the leading plastic surgeons in the United States.

     We offer a broad range of products addressing various conditions or aesthetic improvements, including facial wrinkles, acne, fungal infections, rosacea, hyperpigmentation, photoaging, psoriasis, skin and skin-structure infections, seborrheic dermatitis and cosmesis (improvement in the texture and appearance of skin). We currently offer 18 branded products. Our primary brands are PERLANE^® (hyaluronic acid), RESTYLANE^® (hyaluronic acid), SOLODYN^® (minocycline HCl, USP), TRIAZ^® (benzoyl peroxide), VANOS^® (fluocinonide) Cream 0.1%, and ZIANA^® (clindamycin phosphate 1.2% and tretinoin 0.025%) Gel. Many of our primary brands currently enjoy branded market leadership in the segments in which they compete. Because of the significance of these brands to

our business, we concentrate our sales and marketing efforts in promoting them to physicians in our target markets. We also sell a number of other products that we consider less critical to our business.

     We develop and obtain marketing and distribution rights to pharmaceutical agents in various stages of development. We have a variety of products under development, ranging from new products to existing product line extensions and reformulations of existing products. Our product development strategy involves the rapid evaluation and formulation of new therapeutics by obtaining preclinical safety and efficacy data, when possible, followed by rapid safety and efficacy testing in humans. As a result of our increasing financial strength, we have begun adding long-term projects to our development pipeline. Historically, we have supplemented our research and development efforts by entering into research and development agreements with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

     Currently, we outsource all of our product manufacturing needs. The underlying cost to us for manufacturing our products is established in our agreements with outside manufacturers. Because of the short-term nature of these agreements, our expenses for manufacturing are not fixed and could change from contract to contract.

Our Products

     We currently market 18 branded products. Our sales and marketing efforts are currently focused on our primary brands. The following chart details certain important features of our primary brands:

Brand		Treatment		U.S. Market Impact
PERLANE®		Injectable gel for implantation into the deep dermis to superficial subcutis for the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles, such as nasolabial folds		Launched in May 2007 following U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval on May 2, 2007
RESTYLANE®		Injectable gel for treatment of moderate to severe facial wrinkles and folds, such as nasolabial folds		The leading worldwide injectable dermal filler, launched in January 2004 following FDA approval on December 12, 2003
SOLODYN®		Once daily dosage in the treatment of inflammatory lesions of non-nodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 12 and older		Launched in July 2006 following FDA approval on May 8, 2006
TRIAZ®		Topical patented gel and cleanser and patent-pending pad treatments for acne		A leading branded prescription benzoyl peroxide product, launched during fiscal 1996
VANOS®		Super-high potency topical corticosteroid indicated for the relief of the inflammatory and pruritic manifestations of corticosteroid responsive dermatoses in patients 12 years of age or older		Launched in April 2005 following FDA approval on February 11, 2005
ZIANA®		Once daily topical gel treatment for acne vulgaris in patients 12 and older		Approved by the FDA on November 7, 2006. First commercial sales to wholesalers in December 2006 and launched in January 2007

Dermal Restorative Products

     Our principal branded dermal restorative products are described below (see also Item 1A. Risk Factors):

     RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE FINE LINES^TM and SubQ^TM are injectable, transparent, stabilized hyaluronic acid gels, which require no patient sensitivity tests in advance of product administration. These products are the leading particle-based hyaluronic acid dermal fillers and offer patients a “tissue tailored” result based on their particular skin type volume augmentation needs. In the United States, the FDA regulates these products as medical devices. Medicis offers all four of these products in Canada, and began offering RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® in the United States on January 6, 2004 and May 2, 2007, respectively. RESTYLANE FINE LINES ^TM and SubQ^TM have not yet been approved by the FDA for use in the United States. We acquired the exclusive U.S. and Canadian rights to these dermal restorative products from Q-Med AB, a Swedish biotechnology and medical device company and its affiliates (collectively “Q-Med”) through license agreements.

Prescription Pharmaceuticals

     Our principal branded prescription pharmaceutical products are described below (see also Item 1A. Risk Factors):

     SOLODYN^®, launched to dermatologists in July 2006 after approval by the FDA on May 8, 2006, is the only oral minocycline approved for once daily dosage in the treatment of inflammatory lesions of non-nodular moderate to severe acne vulgaris in patients 12 years of age and older. SOLODYN^® is also the only approved minocycline in extended release tablet form. SOLODYN^® is lipid soluble, and its mode of action occurs in the skin and sebum. SOLODYN^® is not bioequivalent to any other minocycline products, and is in no way interchangeable with other forms of minocycline. SOLODYN^® is patented until 2018 by a U.S. patent which covers SOLODYN^® (see also Item 1A. Risk Factors). Other patent applications covering SOLODYN^® are to be filed or are pending (see also Item 1A. Risk Factors). SOLODYN^® is available by prescription in 45mg, 90mg and 135mg extended release tablet dosages.

     TRIAZ^®, a topical therapy prescribed for the treatment of numerous forms and varying degrees of acne, is available as a patented gel or cleanser or in a patent-pending pad in three concentrations. TRIAZ^® products are manufactured using the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide in a patented vehicle containing glycolic acid and zinc lactate. Studies conducted by third parties have shown that benzoyl peroxide is the most efficacious agent available for eradicating the bacteria that cause acne with no reported resistance. We introduced the TRIAZ^® brand in fiscal 1996. In July 2003, we launched TRIAZ^® Pads, the first benzoyl peroxide pad available in the U.S. indicated for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris. TRIAZ^® is protected by a U.S. patent that expires in 2015.

     VANOS^® Cream, launched to dermatologists in April 2005 after approval by the FDA on February 11, 2005, is a super-high potency (Class I) topical corticosteroid indicated for the relief of the inflammatory and pruritic manifestations of corticosteroid responsive dermatoses in patients 12 years of age or older. The active ingredient in VANOS^® is fluocinonide 0.1%, and is the only fluocinonide available in the Class I category of topical corticosteroids. Physicians may already be familiar with the fluocinonide 0.05%, the active ingredient in another of our products, the Class II corticosteroid LIDEX^®. Two double blind clinical studies have demonstrated the efficacy, safety and tolerability of VANOS^®. Its base was formulated to have the cosmetic elegance of a cream, yet behave like an ointment on the skin. In addition, physicians have the flexibility of prescribing VANOS^® either for once or twice daily application. VANOS^® Cream is protected by three U.S. patents that expire in 2021.

     ZIANA^® Gel, which contains clindamycin phosphate 1.2% and tretinoin 0.025%, was approved by the FDA on November 7, 2006. Initial shipments of ZIANA^® to wholesalers began in December 2006, with formal promotional launch to dermatologists occurring in January 2007. ZIANA^® is the first and only combination of clindamycin and tretinoin approved for once daily use for the topical treatment of acne vulgaris in patients 12 years and older. ZIANA^® is also the first and only approved acne product to combine an antibiotic and a retinoid. ZIANA^® is protected by a U.S. patent for both composition of matter on the aqueous-based vehicle and method that expires in 2020. An additional patent covering composition of matter has been placed before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to be reissued. Each of these patents cover aspects of the unique vehicle which are used to deliver the active ingredients in ZIANA^®. ZIANA^® is available by prescription in 30 gram and 60 gram tubes.

Research and Development

     We develop and obtain rights to pharmaceutical agents in various stages of development. Currently, we have a variety of products under development, ranging from new products to existing product line extensions and reformulations of existing products. Our product development strategy involves the rapid evaluation and formulation of new therapeutics by obtaining preclinical safety and efficacy data, when possible, followed by rapid safety and efficacy testing in humans. As a result of our increasing financial strength, we have begun adding long-term projects to our development pipeline. Historically, we have supplemented our research and development efforts by entering into research and development agreements with other pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies.

     We incurred total research and development costs for all of our sponsored and unreimbursed co-sponsored pharmaceutical projects for 2007, 2006, the Transition Period, the corresponding six-month period of 2004 and fiscal 2005 of $39.4 million, $161.8 million, $22.4 million, $45.1 million, and $65.7 million, respectively. Research and development costs for 2007 includes $8.0 million related to our option to acquire Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (“Revance”) or to license Revance’s product currently under development. Research and development costs for 2006 include $125.2 million paid to Ipsen Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ipsen, S.A. (“Ipsen”) pursuant to the RELOXIN^® development agreements. Research and development costs for the Transition Period include $11.9 million paid to Dow Pharmaceutical Sciences, Inc. (“Dow”) pursuant to a development agreement. Research and development costs for the corresponding six-month period of 2004 include $30.0 million related to our license agreement with Q-Med related to the SubQ^TM product, and $5.0 million related to our development and license agreement with Ansata Therapeutics, Inc. (“Ansata”). Research and development costs for fiscal 2005 include $30.0 million related to our license agreement with Q-Med related to the SubQ^TM product, $5.0 million related to our development and license agreement with Ansata, and $8.3 million related to our research and development collaboration with AAIPharma, Inc. (“AAIPharma”).

     On December 11, 2007, we announced a strategic collaboration with Revance whereby we made an equity investment in Revance and purchased an option to acquire Revance or to license exclusively in North America Revance’s novel topical botulinum toxin type A product currently under clinical development. The consideration to be paid to Revance upon our exercise of the option will be at an amount that will approximate the then fair value of Revance or the license of the product under development, as determined by an independent appraisal. The option period will extend through the end of Phase 2 testing in the United States. In consideration for our $20.0 million payment, we received preferred stock representing an approximate 13.7 percent ownership in Revance, or approximately 11.7 percent on a fully diluted basis and the option to acquire Revance or to license the product under development. The $20.0 million is expected to be used by Revance primarily for the development of the new product. $12.0 million of the $20.0 million payment represents the fair value of the investment in Revance at the time of the investment and is included in other long-term assets in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2007. The remaining $8.0 million, which is non-refundable and is expected to be utilized in the development of the new product, represents the residual value of the option to acquire Revance or to license the product under development and is included in research and development expense for the three months ended December 31, 2007. Additionally, we have committed to make further equity investments in Revance of up to $5.0 million under certain terms, subject to certain conditions and prior to the exercise of the option to acquire Revance or to license exclusively Revance’s topical botulinum toxin type A product in North America.

     Prior to the exercise of the option, Revance will remain primarily responsible for the worldwide development of Revance’s topical botulinum toxin type A product in consultation with us in North America. We will assume primary responsibility for the development of the product should consummation of either a merger or a license for topically delivered botulinum toxin type A in North America be completed under the terms of the option. Revance will have sole responsibility for manufacturing the development product and manufacturing the product during commercialization worldwide. Our right to exercise the option is triggered upon Revance’s successful completion of certain regulatory milestones through the end of Phase 2 testing in the United States. A license would contain a payment upon exercise of the license option, milestone payments related to clinical, regulatory and commercial achievements, and royalties based on sales, as defined in the license. If we elect to exercise the option, the financial terms for the acquisition or license will be determined through an independent valuation in accordance with specified methodologies.

     On October 9, 2007, we entered into a development and license agreement with a company for the development of a dermatologic product. Under terms of the agreement, we made an initial payment of $1.5 million upon execution of the agreement. In addition, we are required to pay $18.0 million upon successful completion of certain clinical milestones and $5.2 million upon the first commercial sales of the product in the U.S. We will also make royalty payments based on net sales as defined in the license. The $1.5 million payment was recognized as a charge to research and development expense during 2007.

     On June 19, 2006, we entered into an exclusive start-up development agreement with a company for the development of a dermatologic product. Under terms of the agreement, we made an initial payment of $1.0 million upon execution of the agreement, and are required to pay a milestone payment of $3.0 million upon execution of a development and license agreement between the parties. In addition, we will pay approximately $16.0 million upon

successful completion of certain clinical milestones and approximately $12.0 million upon the first commercial sales of the product in the U.S. We also will make additional milestone payments upon the achievement of certain commercial milestones. The $1.0 million payment was recognized as a charge to research and development expense during 2006.

     On March 17, 2006, we entered into a development and distribution agreement with Ipsen, whereby Ipsen granted Aesthetica Ltd., our wholly-owned subsidiary, rights to develop, distribute and commercialize Ipsen’s botulinum toxin type A product in the United States, Canada and Japan for aesthetic use by physicians. The product is commonly referred to as RELOXIN^® in the U.S. aesthetic market and DYSPORT^® in medical and aesthetic markets outside the U.S. The product is not currently approved for use in the U.S., Canada or Japan. Upon execution of the development and distribution agreement, we made an initial payment to Ipsen in the amount of $90.1 million in consideration for the exclusive distribution rights in the U.S., Canada and Japan. We will pay Ipsen an additional $26.5 million upon successful completion of various clinical and regulatory milestones (including $25.0 million upon the FDA’s acceptance of our Biologics License Application (“BLA”) for RELOXIN^®), $75.0 million upon the product’s approval by the FDA and $2.0 million upon regulatory approval of the product in Japan. Ipsen will manufacture and provide the product to us for the term of the agreement, which extends to December 2036. Ipsen will receive a royalty based on sales and a supply price, the total of which is equivalent to approximately 30% of net sales as defined under the agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, we are responsible for all remaining research and development costs associated with obtaining the product’s approval in the U.S., Canada and Japan.

     On January 30, 2008, we received a letter from the FDA stating that, upon a preliminary review of our BLA for RELOXIN^®, the FDA has determined not to accept the BLA for filing because it is not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. While we are uncertain of the impact at this time, the FDA’s determination not to accept the BLA may result in delays in the FDA’s substantive response to the BLA.

     Additionally, on March 17, 2006, Medicis and Ipsen agreed to negotiate and enter into an agreement relating to the exclusive distribution and development rights of the product for the aesthetic market in Europe, and subsequently in certain other markets. Under the terms of the U.S., Canada and Japan agreement, as amended, we were obligated to make an additional $35.1 million payment to Ipsen if this agreement was not entered into by April 15, 2006. On April 13, 2006, Medicis and Ipsen agreed to extend this deadline to July 15, 2006. In connection with this extension, we paid Ipsen approximately $12.9 million in April 2006, which would be applied against the total obligation, in the event an agreement was not entered into by the extended deadline. On July 17, 2006, Medicis and Ipsen agreed that the two companies would not pursue an agreement for the commercialization of the product outside of the U.S., Canada and Japan. On July 17, 2006, we made the additional $22.2 million payment to Ipsen, representing the remaining portion of the $35.1 million total obligation, resulting from the discontinuance of negotiations for other territories.

     The initial $90.1 million payment and the $35.1 million obligation were recognized as charges to research and development expense during 2006.

     On January 28, 2005, we amended our strategic alliance with AAIPharma, previously initiated in June 2002, for the development, commercialization and license of a dermatologic product, SOLODYN^®. The consummation of the amendment did not affect the timing of the development project. The amendment allowed for the immediate transfer of the work product as defined under the agreement, as well as the product’s management and development, to us, and provided that AAIPharma would continue to assist us with the development of SOLODYN^® on a fee for services basis. We had no financial obligations to pay AAIPharma on the attainment of additional clinical milestones, but we incurred approximately $8.3 million as a charge to research and development expense during the third quarter of fiscal 2005, as part of the amendment and the assumption of all liabilities associated with the project. SOLODYN^® was approved by the FDA on May 8, 2006. In addition to the amendment, we entered into a supply agreement with AAIPharma for the manufacture of the product by AAIPharma. We have the right to qualify an alternate manufacturing facility, and AAIPharma agreed to assist us in obtaining these qualifications. Upon the approval of the alternate facility and approval of the product, we will pay AAIPharma approximately $1.0 million.

     On December 13, 2004, we entered into an exclusive development and license agreement and other ancillary agreements with Ansata. The development and license agreement granted us the exclusive, worldwide rights to Ansata’s early stage, proprietary antimicrobial peptide technology. In accordance with the development and license agreement, we paid $5.0 million upon signing of the contract, and would have been required to make additional payments for the achievement of certain developmental milestones. In June 2006, the development project was terminated. We have no current or future obligations related to this project. The initial $5.0 million payment was recorded as a charge to research and development expense during the second quarter of fiscal 2005.

     On July 15, 2004, we entered into an exclusive license agreement and other ancillary documents with Q-Med to market, distribute and commercialize in the United States and Canada Q-Med’s product currently known as SubQ^TM. Q-Med has the exclusive right to manufacture SubQ^TM for Medicis. SubQ^TM is currently not approved for use in the United States. Under the terms of the license agreement, Medicis Aesthetics Holdings Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Medicis, licenses SubQ^TM for approximately $80.0 million, due as follows: approximately $30.0 million paid on July 15, 2004, which was recorded as research and development expense during the first quarter of fiscal 2005; approximately $10.0 million upon successful completion of certain clinical milestones; approximately $20.0 million upon the satisfaction of certain defined regulatory milestones; and approximately $20.0 million upon U.S. launch of SubQ^TM. We also will make additional milestone payments to Q-Med upon the achievement of certain commercial milestones. SubQ^TM is comprised of the same NASHA^TM substance as RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^® and RESTYLANE FINE LINES^TM with a larger gel particle size and has patent protection until at least 2015 in the United States.

     On September 26, 2002, we entered into an exclusive license and development agreement with Dow for the development and commercialization of ZIANA^®. Under terms of the agreement, as amended, we made an initial payment of $5.4 million and a development milestone payment of $8.8 million to Dow during fiscal 2003, a development milestone payment of $2.4 million to Dow during fiscal 2004 and development milestone payments totaling $11.9 million to Dow during the Transition Period. These payments were recorded as charges to research and development expense in the periods in which the milestones were achieved. During the quarter ended December 31, 2006, ZIANA^® was approved by the FDA and, in accordance with the agreement between the parties, we made an additional payment of $1.0 million to Dow for the achievement of this milestone. The $1.0 million payment was recorded as an intangible asset in our consolidated balance sheets. The agreement also included a one-time milestone payment of $1.0 million payable to Dow the first time ZIANA^® achieved a specific commercialization milestone during a 12-month period ending on the anniversary of ZIANA^®’s launch date. This milestone was achieved during the three months ended June 30, 2007, and the $1.0 million milestone payment was accrued for as of June 30, 2007 and recorded as an addition to intangible assets in our consolidated balance sheets. In accordance with the agreement, the milestone is payable during the three months ended March 31, 2008.

Sales and Marketing

     Our combined dedicated sales force, consisting of 200 employees as of December 31, 2007, focuses on high patient volume dermatologists and plastic surgeons. Since a relatively small number of physicians are responsible for writing a majority of dermatological prescriptions and performing dermal aesthetic procedures, we believe that the size of our sales force, including its currently ongoing expansion, is appropriate to reach our target physicians. Our therapeutic dermatology sales forces consist of 109 employees who regularly call on approximately 12,000 dermatologists. Our dermal aesthetic sales force consists of 91 employees who regularly call on leading plastic surgeons, facial plastic surgeons, dermatologists and dermatologic surgeons. We also have eight national account managers who regularly call on major drug wholesalers, managed care organizations, large retail chains, formularies and related organizations.

     Our strategy is to cultivate relationships of trust and confidence with the high prescribing dermatologists and the leading plastic surgeons in the United States. We use a variety of marketing techniques to promote our products including sampling, journal advertising, promotional materials, specialty publications, coupons, money-back or product replacement guarantees, educational conferences and informational websites. We also promote our dermal aesthetic products through television and radio advertising.

     We believe we have created an attractive incentive program for our sales force that is based upon goals in prescription growth, market share achievement and customer service.

Warehousing and Distribution

     We utilize an independent national warehousing corporation to store and distribute our products from primarily two regional warehouses in Nevada and Georgia, as well as additional warehouses in Maryland and North Carolina. Upon the receipt of a purchase order through electronic data input (“EDI”), phone, mail or facsimile, the order is processed through our inventory management systems and is transmitted electronically to the appropriate warehouse for picking and packing. Upon shipment, the warehouse sends back to us via EDI the necessary information to automatically process the invoice in a timely manner.

Customers

     Our customers include certain of the nation’s leading wholesale pharmaceutical distributors, such as Cardinal Health, Inc. (“Cardinal”) and McKesson Corporation (“McKesson”) and other major drug chains. During 2007, 2006, the Transition Period, the comparable six-month period in 2004 and fiscal 2005, these customers accounted for the following portions of our net revenues:

														Comparable
														Six-Month
										Transition				Period
		2007				2006				Period				in 2004				Fiscal 2005
McKesson			52.2	%			56.8	%			54.9	%			50.8	%			51.2	%
Cardinal			16.9	%			19.3	%			18.9	%			19.7	%			21.8	%

     McKesson is our sole distributor of our RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® products in the United States and Canada.

Third-Party Reimbursement

     Our operating results and business success depend in large part on the availability of adequate third-party payor reimbursement to patients for our prescription-brand products. These third-party payors include governmental entities such as Medicaid, private health insurers and managed care organizations. Because of the size of the patient population covered by managed care organizations, marketing of prescription drugs to them and the pharmacy benefit managers that serve many of these organizations has become important to our business.

     The trend toward managed healthcare in the United States and the growth of managed care organizations could significantly influence the purchase of pharmaceutical products, resulting in lower prices and a reduction in product demand. Managed care organizations and other third party payors try to negotiate the pricing of medical services and products to control their costs. Managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers typically develop formularies to reduce their cost for medications. Formularies can be based on the prices and therapeutic benefits of the available products. Due to their lower costs, generic products are often favored. The breadth of the products covered by formularies varies considerably from one managed care organization to another, and many formularies include alternative and competitive products for treatment of particular medical conditions. Exclusion of a product from a formulary can lead to its sharply reduced usage in the managed care organization patient population. Payment or reimbursement of only a portion of the cost of our prescription products could make our products less attractive, from a net-cost perspective, to patients, suppliers and prescribing physicians.

     Some of our products are not of a type generally eligible for reimbursement. It is possible that products manufactured by others could address the same effects as our products and be subject to reimbursement. If this were the case, some of our products may be unable to compete on a price basis. In addition, decisions by state regulatory agencies, including state pharmacy boards, and/or retail pharmacies may require substitution of generic for branded products, may prefer competitors’ products over our own, and may impair our pricing and thereby constrain our market share and growth.

Seasonality

     Our business, taken as a whole, is not materially affected by seasonal factors, although a substantial portion of our prescription product revenues has been recognized in the last month of each quarter and we schedule our inventory purchases to meet anticipated customer demand. As a result, relatively small delays in the receipt of manufactured products by us could result in revenues being deferred or lost.

Manufacturing

     We currently outsource all of our manufacturing needs, and we are required by the FDA to contract only with manufacturers who comply with current Good Manufacturing Practices (“cGMP”) regulations and other applicable laws and regulations. Typically our manufacturing contracts are short-term. We review our manufacturing arrangements on a regular basis and assess the viability of alternative manufacturers if our current manufacturers are unable to fulfill our needs. If any of our manufacturing partners are unable to perform their obligations under our manufacturing agreements or if any of our manufacturing agreements are terminated, we may experience a disruption in the manufacturing of the applicable product that would adversely affect our results of operations.

     Under several exclusive supply agreements, with certain exceptions, we must purchase most of our product supply from specific manufacturers. If any of these exclusive manufacturer or supplier relationships were terminated, we would be forced to find a replacement manufacturer or supplier. The FDA requires that all manufacturers used by pharmaceutical companies comply with the FDA’s regulations, including the cGMP regulations applicable to manufacturing processes. The cGMP validation of a new facility and the approval of that manufacturer for a new drug product may take a year or more before manufacture can begin at the facility. Delays in obtaining FDA validation of a replacement manufacturing facility could cause an interruption in the supply of our products. Although we have business interruption insurance to assist in covering the loss of income for products where we do not have a secondary manufacturer, which may mitigate the harm to us from the interruption of the manufacturing of our largest selling products caused by certain events, the loss of a manufacturer could still cause a reduction in our sales, margins and market share, as well as harm our overall business and financial results.

     We and the manufacturers of our products rely on suppliers of raw materials used in the production of our products. Some of these materials are available from only one source and others may become available from only one source. We try to maintain inventory levels that are no greater than necessary to meet our current projections, which could have the affect of exacerbating supply problems. Any interruption in the supply of finished products could hinder our ability to timely distribute finished products. If we are unable to obtain adequate product supplies to satisfy our customers’ orders, we may lose those orders and our customers may cancel other orders and stock and sell competing products. This, in turn, could cause a loss of our market share and reduce our revenues. In addition, any disruption in the supply of raw materials or an increase in the cost of raw materials to our manufacturers could have a significant effect on their ability to supply us with our products, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

     Our TRIAZ^®, VANOS^® and ZIANA^® branded products are manufactured by Contract Pharmaceuticals Limited pursuant to a manufacturing agreement that automatically renews on an annual basis, unless terminated by either party.

     Our RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® branded products in the U.S. and Canada are manufactured by Q-Med pursuant to a long-term supply agreement that expires no earlier than 2013.

     Our SOLODYN^® branded product is manufactured by AAIPharma pursuant to a long-term supply agreement that expires in 2010, unless extended by mutual agreement. We are also in the process of qualifying an alternative manufacturing facility for SOLODYN^®. Upon the approval of the alternate facility and approval of the product, we will pay AAIPharma approximately $1.0 million.

Raw Materials

     We and the manufacturers of our products rely on suppliers of raw materials used in the production of our products. Some of these materials are available from only one source and others may become available from only one source. Any disruption in the supply of raw materials or an increase in the cost of raw materials to our manufacturers could have a significant effect on their ability to supply us with our products.

License and Royalty Agreements

     Pursuant to license agreements with third parties, we have acquired rights to manufacture, use or market certain of our existing products, as well as many of our development products and technologies. Such agreements typically contain provisions requiring us to use our best efforts or otherwise exercise diligence in pursuing market development for such products in order to maintain the rights granted under the agreements and may be canceled upon our failure to perform our payment or other obligations. In addition, we have licensed certain rights to manufacture, use and sell certain of our technologies outside the United States and Canada to various licensees.

Trademarks, Patents and Proprietary Rights

     We believe that trademark protection is an important part of establishing product and brand recognition. We own a number of registered trademarks and trademark applications. U.S. federal registrations for trademarks remain in force for 10 years and may be renewed every 10 years after issuance, provided the mark is still being used in commerce. OMNICEF^® is a trademark of Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. and is used under a license from Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (“Abbott”). On April 1, 2005, Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd. merged with Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., creating Astelles Pharma, Inc.

     We have obtained and licensed a number of patents covering key aspects of our products, including a U.S. patent expiring in October of 2015 covering various formulations of TRIAZ^®, a U.S. patent expiring in October of 2015 covering RESTYLANE^®, a U.S. patent expiring in February of 2018 covering SOLODYN^® Tablets, two U.S. patents expiring in February of 2015 and August of 2020 covering ZIANA^® Gel, and three U.S. patents expiring in December 2021 covering VANOS^® Cream. We have patent applications pending relating to SOLODYN^® Tablets, and ZIANA^® Gel. We are also pursuing several other U.S. and foreign patent applications.

     We rely and expect to continue to rely upon unpatented proprietary know-how and technological innovation in the development and manufacture of many of our principal products. Our policy is to require all our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements with us.

     Our success with our products will depend, in part, on our ability to obtain, and successfully defend if challenged, patent or other proprietary protection. However, the issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its validity or as to the enforceable scope of the claims of the patent. Accordingly, our patents may not prevent other companies from developing similar or functionally equivalent products or from successfully challenging the validity of our patents. As a result, if our patent applications are not approved or, even if approved, such patents are circumvented or not upheld in a legal proceeding, our ability to competitively exploit our patented products and technologies may be significantly reduced. Also, such patents may or may not provide competitive advantages for their respective products or they may be challenged or circumvented by competitors, in which case our ability to commercially exploit these products may be diminished.

     Third parties may challenge and seek to invalidate or circumvent our patents and patent applications relating to our products, product candidates and technologies. Challenges may result in potentially significant harm to our business. The cost of responding to these challenges and the inherent costs to defend the validity of our patents, including the prosecution of infringements and the related litigation, can require a substantial commitment of our management’s time, be costly and can preclude or delay the commercialization of products. For example, on January 15, 2008, IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that our U.S. Patent No. 5,908,838 related to SOLODYN^® is invalid and is not infringed by IMPAX’s October 2007 filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic version of SOLODYN^®. See Item 3 of Part I of this amended report, “Legal

Proceedings” and Note 16, “Commitments and Contingencies,” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements listed under Item 15 of Part IV of this amended report, “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules,” for information concerning our current intellectual property litigation.

     From time to time, we may need to obtain licenses to patents and other proprietary rights held by third parties to develop, manufacture and market our products. If we are unable to timely obtain these licenses on commercially reasonable terms, our ability to commercially exploit such products may be inhibited or prevented.

Competition

     The pharmaceutical and dermal aesthetics industries are characterized by intense competition, rapid product development and technological change. Numerous companies are engaged in the development, manufacture and marketing of health care products competitive with those that we offer. As a result, competition is intense among manufacturers of prescription pharmaceuticals and dermal injection products, such as for our primary brands.

     Many of our competitors are large, well-established pharmaceutical, chemical, cosmetic or health care companies with considerably greater financial, marketing, sales and technical resources than those available to us. Additionally, many of our present and potential competitors have research and development capabilities that may allow them to develop new or improved products that may compete with our product lines. Our products could be rendered obsolete or made uneconomical by the development of new products to treat the conditions addressed by our products, technological advances affecting the cost of production, or marketing or pricing actions by one or more of our competitors. Each of our products competes for a share of the existing market with numerous products that have become standard treatments recommended or prescribed by dermatologists and podiatrists and administered by plastic surgeons and aesthetic dermatologists. In addition to product development, other competitive factors affecting the pharmaceutical industry include testing, approval and marketing, industry consolidation, product quality and price, product technology, reputation, customer service and access to technical information.

     The largest competitors for our prescription dermatological products include Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis, Stiefel Laboratories and Warner Chilcott. Several of our primary prescription brands compete or may compete in the near future with generic (non-branded) pharmaceuticals, which claim to offer equivalent therapeutic benefits at a lower cost. In some cases, insurers, third-party payors and pharmacies seek to encourage the use of generic products, making branded products less attractive, from a cost perspective, to buyers.

     Our facial aesthetics products compete primarily against Allergan. Among other dermal filler products, Allergan markets Juvéderm^TM. Allergan is a larger company than Medicis, and has greater financial, marketing, sales and technical resources than those available to us. Other dermal filler products, such as Artes Medical’s Artefill^®, BioForm Medical’s Radiesse^®, Sanofi-Aventis’ Sculptra^®, and Anika Therapeutics’ Elevess^TM have also recently been approved by the FDA. Patients may differentiate these products from RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® based on price, efficacy and/or duration, which may appeal to some patients. In addition, there are several dermal filler products under development and/or in the FDA pipeline for approval, including products from Johnson & Johnson and Mentor Corporation, which claim to offer equivalent or greater facial aesthetic benefits to RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® and, if approved, the companies producing such products could charge less to doctors for their products.

Government Regulation

     The manufacture and sale of biological products, drugs and medical devices are subject to regulation principally by the FDA, but also by other federal agencies and state and local authorities in the United States, and by comparable agencies in certain foreign countries. The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”), the FDA and state and local authorities regulate the advertising of over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics. The Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and other federal and state statutes and regulations, govern, among other things, the testing, manufacture, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, sale, distribution, advertising and promotion of our products.

     Our RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® dermal filler products are prescription medical devices intended for human use and are subject to regulation by the FDA in the United States. Unless an exemption applies, a medical device in the U.S. must have a Premarket Approval Application (“PMA”) in accordance with the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended, or a 510(k) clearance (a demonstration that the new device is “substantially equivalent” to a device already on the market). RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^® and non-collagen dermal fillers are subject to PMA regulations that require premarket review of clinical data on safety and effectiveness. FDA device regulations for PMAs generally require reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness prior to marketing, including safety and efficacy data obtained under clinical protocols approved under an Investigational Device Exemption (“IDE”) and the manufacturing of the device requires compliance with “quality systems regulations” (“QSRs”), as verified by detailed FDA investigations of manufacturing facilities. These regulations also require post-approval reporting of alleged product defects, recalls and certain adverse experiences to the FDA. Generally, FDA regulations divide medical devices into three classes. Class I devices are subject to general controls that require compliance with device establishment registration, product listing, labeling, QSRs and other general requirements that are also applicable to all classes of medical devices but, at least currently, most are not subject to pre-market review. Class II devices are subject to special controls in addition to general controls and generally require the submission of a premarket notification (501(k) clearance) before marketing is permitted. Class III devices are subject to the most comprehensive regulation and in most cases, other than those that remain grandfathered based on clinical use before 1976, require submission to the FDA of a PMA application that includes biocompatibility, manufacturing and clinical data supporting the safety and effectiveness of the device as well as compliance with the same provisions applicable to all medical devices such as QSRs. Annual reports must be submitted to the FDA, as well as descriptions of certain adverse events that are reported to the sponsor within specified timeframes of receipt of such reports. RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® are regulated as a Class III PMA-required medical device. RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® have been approved by the FDA under a PMA.

     In general, products falling within the FDA’s definition of “new drugs” require premarket approval by the FDA. Products falling within the FDA’s definition of “cosmetics” or of “drugs” (if they are not also “new drugs”) and that are generally recognized as “safe and effective” do not require premarketing clearance although all drugs must comply with a host of post-market regulations, including manufacture under cGMP and adverse experience reporting. The steps required before a “new drug” may be marketed, shipped or sold in the United States typically include (i) preclinical laboratory and animal testing of pharmacology and toxicology; (ii) manufacture under cGMP; (iii) submission to the FDA of an Investigational New Drug (or “IND”) application, which must become effective before clinical trials may commence; (iv) at least two adequate and well-controlled clinical trials to establish the safety and efficacy of the drug (for some applications, the FDA may accept one large clinical trial) beyond those human clinical trials necessary to establish a safe dose and to identify the human absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of the active ingredient as applicable; (v) submission to the FDA of a New Drug Application (or “NDA”); and (vi) FDA approval of the NDA. In addition to obtaining FDA approval for each product, each drug-manufacturing establishment must be registered with, and approved through a pre-approval application (PAI) by, the FDA.

     New drugs may also be approved by the agency pursuant to an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) for generic drugs if the same active ingredient has previously been approved by the agency and the original sponsor of the NDA no longer has patent protection or statutory marketing exclusivity. Approval of an ANDA does not generally require the submission of clinical data on the safety and effectiveness of the drug product if in an oral or parental dosage form. Clinical studies may be required for certain topical ANDAs. However, even if no clinical studies are required, the applicant must provide dissolution and/or metabolic studies to show that the active ingredient in an oral generic drug sponsor’s application is comparably available to the patient as the original product in the NDA upon which the ANDA is based.

     Preclinical or biocompatibility testing is generally conducted on laboratory animals to evaluate the potential safety and toxicity of a drug. The results of these studies are submitted to the FDA as a part of an IND or IDE application, which must be approved before clinical trials in humans can begin. Typically, clinical evaluation of new drugs involves a time consuming and costly three-phase process. In Phase I, clinical trials are conducted with a small number of subjects to determine the early safety profile, the relationship of safety to dose, and the pattern of drug distribution and metabolism. In Phase II, one or more clinical trials are conducted with groups of patients afflicted with a specific disease to determine preliminary efficacy and expanded evidence of safety and to determine the degree of effect, if any, as compared to the current treatment regimen. In Phase III, at least two large-

scale, multi-center, comparative trials are conducted with patients afflicted with a target disease to provide sufficient confirmatory data to support the efficacy and safety required by the FDA. The FDA closely monitors the progress of each of the three phases of clinical trials and may, at its discretion, re-evaluate, alter, suspend or terminate the testing based upon the data that have been accumulated to that point and its assessment of the risk/benefit ratio to the patient.

     FDA approval is required before a ‘new drug’ product may be marketed in the United States. However, many historically over-the-counter (“OTC”) drugs are exempt from the FDA’s premarket approval requirements. In 1972, the FDA instituted the ongoing OTC Drug Review to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of all active ingredients and associated labeling (“OTC drugs”) that were proven to be in the market before enactment of the Drug Amendments of 1962. Through this process, the FDA issues monographs that set forth the specific active ingredients, dosages, indications and labeling statements for OTC drugs that the FDA will consider generally recognized as safe and effective and therefore not subject to premarket approval. Before issuance of a final OTC drug monograph as a federal regulation, OTC drugs are classified by the FDA in one of three categories: Category I ingredients and labeling which are deemed “safe and effective for over-the-counter use;” Category II ingredients and labeling which are deemed “not generally recognized as safe and effective for over-the-counter use;” and Category III ingredients and labeling which are deemed “possibly safe and effective with studies ongoing.” Based upon the results of these ongoing studies and pursuant to a court order, the FDA is required to reclassify all Category III ingredients as either Category I or Category II before issuance of a final monograph through notice and comment rule-making. For certain categories of OTC drugs not yet subject to a final monograph, the FDA usually permits such drugs to continue to be marketed until a final monograph becomes effective, unless the drug will pose a potential health hazard to consumers. Stated differently, the FDA generally permits continued marketing only of any Category I products and those Category III products that are “safe but unknown efficacy” products during the pendency of a final monograph. Drugs subject to final monographs, as well as drugs that are subject only to proposed monographs, are also and separately subject to various FDA regulations concerning, for example, cGMP, general and specific OTC labeling requirements and prohibitions against promotion for conditions other than those stated in the labeling. OTC drug manufacturing facilities are subject to FDA inspection, and failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements may lead to administrative or judicially imposed penalties.

     Each of the active ingredients in LOPROX^® products have been approved by the FDA under an NDA. The active ingredient in DYNACIN^® branded products has been approved by the FDA under an ANDA. The active ingredient in the TRIAZ^® products has been classified as a Category III ingredient under a tentative final FDA monograph for OTC use in treatment of labeled conditions. The FDA has requested, and a task force of the Non-Prescription Drug Manufacturers Association (or “NDMA”), a trade association of OTC drug manufacturers, has undertaken further studies to confirm that benzoyl peroxide, an active ingredient in the TRIAZ^® products, is not a tumor promoter when tested in conjunction with UV light exposure. The TRIAZ^® products, which we sell on a prescription basis, have the same ingredients at the same dosage levels as the OTC products. When the FDA issues the final monograph, one of several possible outcomes that may occur is that we may be required by the FDA to discontinue sales of TRIAZ^® products until and unless we file an NDA covering such product. There can be no assurance as to the results of these studies or any FDA action to reclassify benzoyl peroxide. In addition, there can be no assurance that adverse test results would not result in withdrawal of TRIAZ^® products from marketing. An adverse decision by the FDA with respect to the safety of benzoyl peroxide could result in the assertion of product liability claims against us and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

     Our TRIAZ^® branded products must meet the composition and labeling requirements established by the FDA for products containing their respective basic ingredients. We believe that compliance with those established standards avoids the requirement for premarket clearance of these products. There can be no assurance that the FDA will not take a contrary position in the future. Our PLEXION^® branded products, which contain the active ingredients sodium sulfacetamide and sulfur, are marketed under the FDA compliance policy entitled “Marketed New Drugs without Approved NDAs or ANDAs.”

     We believe that certain of our products, as they are promoted and intended by us for use, are exempt from being considered “new drugs” based upon the introduction date of their active ingredients and therefore do not require premarket clearance. There can be no assurance that the FDA will not take a contrary position in the future. If the FDA were to do so, we may be required to seek FDA approval for these products, market these products as

over-the-counter products or withdraw such products from the market. We believe that these products are compliant with applicable regulations governing product safety, use of ingredients, labeling, promotion and manufacturing methods.

     We also will be subject to foreign regulatory authorities governing clinical trials and pharmaceutical sales for products we seek to market outside the United States. Whether or not FDA approval has been obtained, approval of a product by the comparable regulatory authorities of foreign countries must be obtained before marketing the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country, the approval process time required may be longer or shorter than that required for FDA approval, and any foreign regulatory agency may refuse to approve any product we submit for review.

Our History

     We filed our certificate of incorporation with the Secretary of State of Delaware on July 28, 1988. We completed our initial public offering during our fiscal year ended June 30, 1990, and launched our initial pharmaceutical products during our fiscal year ended June 30, 1991.

Employees

     At December 31, 2007, we had 472 full-time employees. No employees are subject to a collective bargaining agreement. We believe we have a good relationship with our employees.

Available Information

     We make available free of charge on or through our Internet website, www.medicis.com, our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports, if any, filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) of 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with, or furnished to, the SEC. We also make available free of charge on or through our website our Business Code of Conduct and Ethics, Corporate Governance Guidelines, Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee Charter, Compensation Committee Charter and Audit Committee Charter. The information contained on our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

     Our statements in this amended report, other reports that we file with the SEC, our press releases and in public statements of our officers and corporate spokespersons contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, Section 21 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. You can identify these statements by the fact that they do not relate strictly to historical or current events, and contain words such as “anticipate,” “estimate,” “expect,” “project,” “intend,” “will,” “plan,” “believe,” “should,” “outlook,” “could,” “target” and other words of similar meaning in connection with discussion of future operating or financial performance. These include statements relating to future actions, prospective products or product approvals, future performance or results of current and anticipated products, sales efforts, expenses, the outcome of contingencies such as legal proceedings and financial results. These statements are based on certain assumptions made by us based on our experience and perception of historical trends, current conditions, expected future developments and other factors we believe are appropriate in the circumstances. Such statements are subject to a number of assumptions, risks and uncertainties, many of which are beyond our control. These forward-looking statements reflect the current views of senior management with respect to future events and financial performance. No assurances can be given, however, that these activities, events or developments will occur or that such results will be achieved, and actual results may vary materially from those anticipated in any forward-looking statement. Any such forward-looking statements, whether made in this amended report or elsewhere, should be considered in context of the various disclosures made by us about our businesses including, without limitation, the risk factors discussed below. We do not plan to update any such forward-looking statements and expressly disclaim any duty to update the information contained in this filing except as required by law.

     We operate in a rapidly changing environment that involves a number of risks. The following discussion highlights some of these risks and others are discussed elsewhere in this amended report. These and other risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition, prospects, operating results or cash flows.

Risks Related To Our Business

The restatement of our consolidated financial statements has subjected us to a number of additional risks and uncertainties, including increased costs for accounting and legal fees and the increased possibility of legal proceedings.

     As discussed elsewhere in this Form 10-K/A and in Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements, we determined that our consolidated financial statements for the annual, transition and quarterly periods in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008 should be restated due to an error in our interpretation and application of SFAS 48 as it applies to a component of our sales return reserve calculations. As a result of the restatement, we have become subject to a number of additional risks and uncertainties, including:

	•		We incurred substantial unanticipated costs for accounting and legal fees in connection with the restatement. Although the restatement is complete, we expect to continue to incur accounting and legal costs as noted below.
	•		As a result of the restatement, we have been named in a number of lawsuits as discussed in Item 3 of Part I of this amended report, “Legal Proceedings” and Note 16, “Commitments and Contingencies.” The plaintiffs in these lawsuits may make additional claims, expand existing claims and/or expand the time periods covered by the complaints. Other plaintiffs may bring additional actions with other claims, based on the restatement. If such events occur, we may incur substantial defense costs regardless of the outcome of these actions and insurance and indemnification may not be sufficient to cover the losses we may incur. Likewise, such events might cause a diversion of our management’s time and attention. If we do not prevail in one or more of these actions, we could be required to pay substantial damages or settlement costs, which could adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and liquidity.

Management recently identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting with respect to our interpretation and application of SFAS 48 as it applies to the calculation of sales return reserves. Additionally, management may identify material weaknesses in the future that could adversely affect investor confidence, impair the value of our common stock and increase our cost of raising capital.

     In connection with the restatement, we have assessed the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures. Management identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting with respect to our interpretation and application of SFAS 48 as it applies to the calculation of sales return reserves. As a result of this material weakness, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at a reasonable assurance level as of December 31, 2007 and the date of this filing. In response, we have adopted a sales return reserve methodology that we believe complies with the requirements of SFAS 48. Management has taken and is taking steps to remediate the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. There can be no assurance as to how quickly or effectively our remediation steps will remediate the material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting or that additional material weaknesses will not be identified in the future.

     Any failure to remedy additional deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that may be discovered in the future or to implement new or improved controls, or difficulties encountered in the implementation of such controls, could harm our operating results, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations or result in material misstatements in our financial statements. Any such failure could, in turn, affect the future ability of our management to certify that our internal control over our financial reporting is effective and, moreover, affect the results of our independent registered public accounting firm’s attestation report regarding our management’s assessment. Inferior internal control over financial reporting could also subject us to the scrutiny of the SEC and other regulatory bodies and could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, which could have an adverse effect on the trading price of our common stock.

     In addition, if we or our independent registered public accounting firm identify additional deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting, the disclosure of that fact, even if quickly remedied, could reduce the market’s confidence in our financial statements and harm our share price. Furthermore, additional deficiencies could result in future non-compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Such non-compliance could subject us to a variety of administrative sanctions, including the suspension or delisting of our ordinary shares from the NYSE and review by the NYSE, the SEC, or other regulatory authorities.

Certain of our primary products could lose patent protection in the near future and become subject to competition from generic forms of such products. If that were to occur, sales of those products would decline significantly and such decline could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

     We depend upon patents to provide us with exclusive marketing rights for certain of our primary products for some period of time. If product patents for our primary products expire, or are successfully challenged by our competitors, in the United States and in other countries, we would face strong competition from lower price generic drugs. Loss of patent protection for any of our primary products would likely lead to a rapid loss of sales for that product, as lower priced generic versions of that drug become available. In the case of products that contribute significantly to our sales, the loss of patent protection could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. For example, while current patent coverage for SOLODYN^® does not expire until 2018, SOLODYN^® may face generic competition in the near future without prior notice if a generic competitor decides to enter the market notwithstanding the risk of a suit for patent infringement. Because SOLODYN^® contains an antibiotic drug that was first approved by the FDA prior to the enactment of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, or FDAMA, SOLODYN^® does not have the benefit of the protections offered under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Accordingly, we would not receive a Paragraph IV notice regarding SOLODYN^® from any potential generic competitor and would not be entitled to an automatic 30-month stay of generic entry that would be available to a patent owner filing an infringement suit based on receipt of such a notice. We currently have one issued patent relating to SOLODYN^®. As part of our patent strategy, we are currently pursuing additional patent protection for SOLODYN^®. However, we cannot provide any assurance that any additional patents will be issued relating to SOLODYN^® and the failure to obtain additional patent protection could adversely affect our ability to deter generic competition, which would adversely affect SOLODYN^® revenue and our results of operations. On January 15, 2008, we announced that IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. (“IMPAX”) announced that IMPAX sent us a letter advising

that IMPAX has filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of SOLODYN^® (minocycline HCl) extended-release capsules. IMPAX has not advised us as to the status of the FDA’s review of its filing, or whether IMPAX has complied with recent FDA requirements for proving bioequivalence. Also on January 15, 2008, IMPAX filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that our U.S. Patent No. 5,908,838 related to SOLODYN^® is invalid and is not infringed by IMPAX’s ANDA for a generic version of SOLODYN^®. In addition to SOLODYN^®, many of our primary prescription products may be subject to generic competition in the near future. If any of our primary products are rendered obsolete or uneconomical by competitive changes, including generic competition, our results of operation would be materially and adversely affected.

If we are unable to secure and protect our intellectual property and proprietary rights, or if our intellectual property rights are found to infringe upon the intellectual property rights of other parties, our business could suffer.

     Our success depends in part on our ability to obtain patents or rights to patents, protect trade secrets, operate without infringing upon the proprietary rights of others, and prevent others from infringing on our patents, trademarks, service marks and other intellectual property rights.

     We believe that the protection of our trademarks and service marks is an important factor in product recognition and in our ability to maintain or increase market share. If we do not adequately protect our rights in our various trademarks and service marks from infringement, their value to us could be lost or diminished. If the marks we use are found to infringe upon the trademark or service mark of another company, we could be forced to stop using those marks and, as a result, we could lose the value of those marks and could be liable for damages caused by an infringement.

     The patents and patent applications in which we have an interest may be challenged as to their validity or enforceability or infringement. Any such challenges may result in potentially significant harm to our business and enable generic entry to markets for our products. The cost of responding to any such challenges and the cost of prosecuting infringement claims and any related litigation, could be substantial. In addition, any such litigation also could require a substantial commitment of our management’s time. On January 15, 2008, IMPAX filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that our U.S. Patent No. 5,908,838 related to SOLODYN^® is invalid and is not infringed by IMPAX’s filing of an ANDA for a generic version of SOLODYN^®. See Item 3 of Part I of this amended report, “Legal Proceedings” and Note 16, “Commitments and Contingencies,” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements listed under Item 15 of Part IV of this amended report, “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules,” for information concerning our current intellectual property litigation.

     We are pursuing several United States patent applications; although we cannot be sure that any of these patents will ever be issued. For example, on November 6, 2007, we received notification of a non-final rejection from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office relating to certain patent applications that we filed relating to SOLODYN^®. We responded promptly to the non-final rejections and are continuing our vigorous efforts to obtain additional patent protection for SOLODYN^®. We also have acquired rights under certain patents and patent applications in connection with our licenses to distribute products and by assignment of rights to patents and patent applications from certain of our consultants and officers. These patents and patent applications may be subject to claims of rights by third parties. If there are conflicting claims to the same patent or patent application, we may not prevail and, even if we do have some rights in a patent or patent application, those rights may not be sufficient for the marketing and distribution of products covered by the patent or patent application.

     The ownership of a patent or an interest in a patent does not always provide significant protection. Others may independently develop similar technologies or design around the patented aspects of our technology. We only conduct patent searches to determine whether our products infringe upon any existing patents when we think such searches are appropriate. As a result, the products and technologies we currently market, and those we may market in the future, may infringe on patents and other rights owned by others. If we are unsuccessful in any challenge to the marketing and sale of our products or technologies, we may be required to license the disputed rights, if the holder of those rights is willing to license such rights, otherwise we may be required to cease marketing the challenged products, or to modify our products to avoid infringing upon those rights. A claim or finding of infringement regarding one of our products could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The costs of responding to infringement claims could be substantial and could require a substantial commitment of our management’s time. The expiration of patents may expose our products to additional competition.

     We also rely upon trade secrets, unpatented proprietary know-how and continuing technological innovation in developing and manufacturing many of our primary products. It is our policy to require all of our employees, consultants and advisors to enter into confidentiality agreements prohibiting them from taking or disclosing our proprietary information and technology. Nevertheless, these agreements may not provide meaningful protection for our trade secrets and proprietary know-how if they are used or disclosed. Despite all of the precautions we may take, people who are not parties to confidentiality agreements may obtain access to our trade secrets or know-how. In addition, others may independently develop similar or equivalent trade secrets or know-how.

We depend on licenses from others, and any loss of such licenses could harm our business, market share and profitability.

     We have acquired the rights to manufacture, use and market certain products, including certain of our primary products. We also expect to continue to obtain licenses for other products and technologies in the future. Our license agreements generally require us to develop a market for the licensed products. If we do not develop these markets within specified time frames, the licensors may be entitled to terminate these license agreements.

     We may fail to fulfill our obligations under any particular license agreement for various reasons, including insufficient resources to adequately develop and market a product, lack of market development despite our diligence and lack of product acceptance. Our failure to fulfill our obligations could result in the loss of our rights under a license agreement.

     Our inability to continue the distribution of any particular licensed product could harm our business, market share and profitability. Also, certain products we license are used in connection with other products we own or license. A loss of a license in such circumstances could materially harm our ability to market and distribute these other products.

Obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals is time consuming, expensive and uncertain.

     The process of obtaining FDA and other regulatory approvals is time consuming and expensive. Clinical trials are required and the marketing and manufacturing of pharmaceutical products are subject to rigorous testing procedures. We may not be able to obtain FDA approval to conduct clinical trials or to manufacture or market any of the products we develop, acquire or license on a timely basis or at all. Moreover, the costs to obtain approvals could be considerable, and the failure to obtain or delays in obtaining an approval could significantly harm our business performance and financial results. The FDA vigorously monitors the ongoing safety of products, which can affect the approvability of our products or the continued ability to market our products. For example, the FDA recently stated it was reviewing the safety of two botulinum toxin products currently marketed in the U.S. Even if pre-marketing approval from the FDA is received, the FDA is authorized to impose post-marketing requirements such as:

	•		testing and surveillance to monitor the product and its continued compliance with regulatory requirements;
	•		submitting products for inspection and, if any inspection reveals that the product is not in compliance, prohibiting the sale of all products from the same lot;
	•		suspending manufacturing;
	•		switching status from prescription to over-the-counter drug;
	•		recalling products; and
	•		withdrawing marketing clearance.

     In their regulation of advertising, the FDA and FTC from time to time issue correspondence to pharmaceutical companies alleging that some advertising or promotional practices are false, misleading or deceptive. The FDA has the power to impose a wide array of sanctions on companies for such advertising practices, and the receipt of correspondence from the FDA alleging these practices could result in the following:

	•		incurring substantial expenses, including fines, penalties, legal fees and costs to comply with the FDA’s requirements;
	•		changes in the methods of marketing and selling products;
	•		taking FDA-mandated corrective action, which may include placing advertisements or sending letters to physicians rescinding previous advertisements or promotion; and
	•		disruption in the distribution of products and loss of sales until compliance with the FDA’s position is obtained.

     In recent years, various legislative proposals have been offered in Congress and in some state legislatures that include major changes in the health care system. These proposals have included price or patient reimbursement constraints on medicines, restrictions on access to certain products, reimportation of products from Canada or other sources and mandatory substitution of generic for branded products. We cannot predict the outcome of such initiatives, and it is difficult to predict the future impact of the broad and expanding legislative and regulatory requirements affecting us.

If we market products in a manner that violates health care fraud and abuse laws, we may be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

     Federal health care program anti-kickback statutes prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for purchasing, leasing, ordering or arranging for the purchase, lease or order of any health care item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid, or other federally financed health care programs. This statute has been interpreted to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers on one hand and prescribers, purchasers and formulary managers on the other. Although there are a number of statutory exemptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution, the exemptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration intended to induce prescribing, purchasing, or recommending may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exemption or safe harbor. Although we believe that we are in compliance, our practices may be determined to fail to meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability.

     Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government, or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid. Pharmaceutical companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of alleged promotional and marketing activities, such as allegedly providing free product to customers with the expectation that the customers would bill federal programs for the product; reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates; engaging in off-label promotion that caused claims to be submitted to Medicaid for non-covered off-label uses; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate Program. The majority of states also have statutes or regulations similar to the federal anti-kickback law and false claims laws, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Sanctions under these federal and state laws may include civil monetary penalties, exclusion of a manufacturer’s products from reimbursement under government programs, criminal fines, and imprisonment. Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of the safe harbors, it is possible that some of our business activities could be subject to challenge under one or more of such laws.

     On April 25, 2007, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Justice Department, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) and the TRICARE Management Activity (collectively, the “United States”) and private complainants to settle all outstanding federal and state civil suits against us in connection with claims related to our alleged off-label marketing and promotion of LOPROX^® and LOPROX^® TS products to pediatricians during periods prior to our May 2004 disposition of our pediatric sales division (the “Settlement Agreement”). The settlement is neither an admission of liability by us nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay approximately $10 million to settle the matter. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the United States released us from the claims asserted by the United States and agreed to refrain from instituting action seeking exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid, the TRICARE Program and other federal health care programs for the alleged conduct. These

releases relate solely to the allegations related to us and do not cover individuals. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the private complainants release us and our officers, directors and employees from the asserted claims, and we release the United States and the private complainants from asserted claims.

     As part of the settlement, we have entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (the “CIA”) with the OIG to resolve any potential administrative claims the OIG may have arising out of the government’s investigation. The CIA acknowledges the existence of our comprehensive existing compliance program and provides for certain other compliance-related activities during the term of the CIA, including the maintenance of a compliance program that, among other things, is designed to ensure compliance with the CIA, federal health care programs and FDA requirements. Pursuant to the CIA, we are required to notify the OIG, in writing, of: (i) any ongoing government investigation or legal proceeding involving an allegation that we have committed a crime or has engaged in fraudulent activities; (ii) any other matter that a reasonable person would consider a probable violation of applicable criminal, civil, or administrative laws; (iii) any written report, correspondence, or communication to the FDA that materially discusses any unlawful or improper promotion of our products; and (iv) any change in location, sale, closing, purchase, or establishment of a new business unit or location related to items or services that may be reimbursed by Federal health care programs. We are also subject to periodic reporting and certification requirements attesting that the provisions of the CIA are being implemented and followed, as well as certain document and record retention mandates. We have hired a Chief Compliance Officer and created an enterprise-wide compliance function to administer our obligations under the CIA. Failure to comply under the CIA could result in substantial civil or criminal penalties and being excluded from government health care programs, which could materially reduce our sales and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

     On or about October 12, 2006, we and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas entered into a Nonprosecution Agreement wherein the government agreed not to prosecute us for any alleged criminal violations relating to the alleged off-label marketing and promotion of LOPROX^®. In exchange for the government’s agreement not to pursue any criminal charges against us, we agreed to continue cooperating with the government in its ongoing investigation into whether past and present employees and officers may have violated federal criminal law regarding alleged off-label marketing and promotion of LOPROX^® to pediatricians. As a result of the investigation, prosecutions and other proceedings, certain past and present sales and marketing employees and officers are likely to separate from the Company and, together with the cost of their defense, fines and penalties, could have a material impact on our reputation, business and financial condition. See Item 3 of Part I of this amended report, “Legal Proceedings” and Note 16, “Commitments and Contingencies,” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements listed under Item 15 of Part IV of this amended report, “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules,” for information concerning our current litigation.

Our corporate compliance program cannot guarantee that we are in compliance with all potentially applicable U.S. federal and state regulations and all potentially applicable foreign regulations.

     The development, manufacturing, distribution, pricing, sales, marketing and reimbursement of our products, together with our general operations, is subject to extensive federal and state regulation in the United States and in foreign countries. While we have developed and instituted a corporate compliance program based on what we believe to be current best practices, we cannot assure you that we or our employees are or will be in compliance with all potentially applicable U.S. federal and state regulations and/or laws or all potentially applicable foreign regulations and/or laws. If we fail to comply with any of these regulations and/or laws a range of actions could result, including, but not limited to, the failure to approve a product candidate, restrictions on our products or manufacturing processes, including withdrawal of our products from the market, significant fines, exclusion from government healthcare programs or other sanctions or litigation.

     In addition, we have entered into a five-year CIA with the OIG. The CIA acknowledges the existence of our comprehensive existing compliance program and provides for certain other compliance-related activities during the term of the CIA, including the maintenance of a compliance program that, among other things, is designed to ensure compliance with the CIA, federal health care programs and FDA requirements. Pursuant to the CIA, we are required to notify the OIG, in writing, of: (i) any ongoing government investigation or legal proceeding involving an allegation that we have committed a crime or has engaged in fraudulent activities; (ii) any other matter that a reasonable person would consider a probable violation of applicable criminal, civil, or administrative laws; (iii) any written report, correspondence, or communication to the FDA that materially discusses any unlawful or improper

promotion of our products; and (iv) any change in location, sale, closing, purchase, or establishment of a new business unit or location related to items or services that may be reimbursed by Federal health care programs. We are also subject to periodic reporting and certification requirements attesting that the provisions of the CIA are being implemented and followed, as well as certain document and record retention mandates. We have hired a Chief Compliance Officer and created an enterprise-wide compliance function to administer our obligations under the CIA. Failure to comply under the CIA could result in substantial civil or criminal penalties and being excluded from government health care programs, which could materially reduce our sales and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We depend on a limited number of customers, and if we lose any of them, our business could be harmed.

     Our customers include some of the United States’ leading wholesale pharmaceutical distributors, such as Cardinal, McKesson, and major drug chains. During 2007, McKesson and Cardinal accounted for 52.2% and 16.9%, respectively, of our net revenues. During 2006, McKesson and Cardinal accounted for 56.8% and 19.3%, respectively, of our net revenues. During the Transition Period, McKesson and Cardinal accounted for 54.9% and 18.9%, respectively, of our net revenues. During fiscal 2005, McKesson and Cardinal accounted for 51.2%, and 21.8%, respectively, of our net revenues. The loss of either of these customers’ accounts or a material reduction in their purchases could harm our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, we may face pricing pressure from our customers. McKesson is our sole distributor of our RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® products in the United States and Canada. We are in the process of negotiating arrangements with wholesalers for fixed-term purchases. To date we have been unable to agree to terms with Cardinal Health. While such arrangements are not necessary for wholesale purchases, if we are unable to come to terms with any wholesalers, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash flows.

We derive a majority of our sales from our primary products, and any factor adversely affecting sales of these products would harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

     We believe that the prescription volume of our primary prescription products, in particular, SOLODYN^® and ZIANA^®, and sales of our dermal aesthetic products, RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^®, will continue to constitute a significant portion of our sales for the foreseeable future. Accordingly, any factor adversely affecting our sales related to these products, individually or collectively, could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. On June 5, 2006, Allergan announced that the FDA had approved its Juvéderm^TM dermal filler family of products. Allergan began marketing these products in January 2007. Other dermal filler products, such as Artefill^®, Radiesse^®, Sculptra^® and Elevess^TM have also recently been approved by the FDA. Patients may differentiate these products from RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® based on price, efficacy and/or duration, which may appeal to some patients. In addition, there are several dermal filler products under development and/or in the FDA pipeline for approval which claim to offer equivalent or greater facial aesthetic benefits to RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® and, if approved, the companies producing such products could charge less to doctors for their products. On January 15, 2008, we announced that IMPAX announced that IMPAX sent us a letter advising that IMPAX has filed an ANDA seeking FDA approval to market a generic version of SOLODYN^® (minocycline HCl) extended-release capsules. IMPAX has not advised us as to the status of the FDA’s review of its filing, or whether IMPAX has complied with recent FDA requirements for proving bioequivalence. Also on January 15, 2008, IMPAX filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that our U.S Patent No. 5,908,838 related to SOLODYN^® is invalid and is not infringed by IMPAX’s ANDA for a generic version of SOLODYN^®.

     Sales related to our primary prescription products, including SOLODYN^® and ZIANA^®, and sales of our dermal restorative products, RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® could also be adversely affected by other factors, including:

	•		manufacturing or supply interruptions;
	•		the development of new competitive pharmaceuticals and technological advances to treat the conditions addressed by our primary products, including the introduction of new products into the marketplace;

	•		generic competition;
	•		marketing or pricing actions by one or more of our competitors;
	•		regulatory action by the FDA and other government regulatory agencies;
	•		importation of other dermal fillers;
	•		changes in the prescribing or procedural practices of dermatologists, plastic surgeons and/or podiatrists;
	•		changes in the reimbursement or substitution policies of third-party payors or retail pharmacies;
	•		product liability claims;
	•		the outcome of disputes relating to trademarks, patents, license agreements and other rights;
	•		changes in state and federal law that adversely affect our ability to market our products to dermatologists, plastic surgeons and/or podiatrists; and
	•		restrictions on travel affecting the ability of our sales force to market to prescribing physicians and plastic surgeons in person.

Our continued growth depends upon our ability to develop new products.

     We have internally developed potential pharmaceutical compounds and agents. We also have acquired the rights to certain potential compounds and agents in various stages of development. We currently have a variety of new products in various stages of research and development and are working on possible improvements, extensions and reformulations of some existing products. These research and development activities, as well as the clinical testing and regulatory approval process, which must be completed before commercial quantities of these developments can be sold, will require significant commitments of personnel and financial resources. We cannot assure you that we will be able to develop a product or technology in a timely manner, or at all. Delays in the research, development, testing or approval processes will cause a corresponding delay in revenue generation from those products. Regardless of whether they are ever released to the market, the expense of such processes will have already been incurred. For example, on January 30, 2008, we received a letter from the FDA stating that, upon a preliminary review of our BLA for the botulinum toxin type A, RELOXIN^®, in aesthetics, the FDA has determined not to accept the BLA for filing because it is not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. While we are uncertain of the impact at this time, the FDA’s determination not to accept the BLA may result in delays in the FDA’s substantive response to the BLA.

     We reevaluate our research and development efforts regularly to assess whether our efforts to develop a particular product or technology are progressing at a rate that justifies our continued expenditures. On the basis of these reevaluations, we have abandoned in the past, and may abandon in the future, our efforts on a particular product or technology. Products that we research or develop may not be successfully commercialized. If we fail to take a product or technology from the development stage to market on a timely basis, we may incur significant expenses without a near-term financial return.

     We have in the past, and may in the future, supplement our internal research and development by entering into research and development agreements with other pharmaceutical companies. We may, upon entering into such agreements, be required to make significant up-front payments to fund the projects. We cannot be sure, however, that we will be able to locate adequate research partners or that supplemental research will be available on terms acceptable to us in the future. If we are unable to enter into additional research partnership arrangements, we may incur additional costs to continue research and development internally or abandon certain projects. Even if we are able to enter into collaborations, we cannot assure you that these arrangements will result in successful product development or commercialization.

     There is also a risk that our products may not gain market acceptance among physicians, patients and the medical community generally. The degree of market acceptance of any medical device or other product that we develop will depend on a number of factors, including demonstrated clinical efficacy and safety, cost-effectiveness, potential advantages over alternative products, and our marketing and distribution capabilities. Physicians will not recommend our products until clinical data or other factors demonstrate their safety and efficacy compared to other competing products. Even if the clinical safety and efficacy of using our products is established, physicians may elect to not recommend using them for any number of other reasons, including whether our products best meet the particular needs of the individual patient.

Our operating results and financial condition may fluctuate.

     Our operating results and financial condition may fluctuate from quarter to quarter and year to year for a number of reasons. The following events or occurrences, among others, could cause fluctuations in our financial performance from period to period:

	•		development of new competitive products or generics by others;
	•		the timing and receipt of FDA approvals or lack of approvals;
	•		changes in the amount we spend to develop, acquire or license new products, technologies or businesses;
	•		costs related to business development transactions;
	•		untimely contingent research and development payments under our third-party product development agreements;
	•		changes in the amount we spend to promote our products;
	•		delays between our expenditures to acquire new products, technologies or businesses and the generation of revenues from those acquired products, technologies or businesses;
	•		changes in treatment practices of physicians that currently prescribe our products;
	•		changes in reimbursement policies of health plans and other similar health insurers, including changes that affect newly developed or newly acquired products;
	•		increases in the cost of raw materials used to manufacture our products;
	•		manufacturing and supply interruptions, including failure to comply with manufacturing specifications;
	•		changes in prescription levels and the effect of economic changes in hurricane and other natural disaster-affected areas;
	•		the impact on our employees, customers, patients, manufacturers, suppliers, vendors, and other companies we do business with and the resulting impact on the results of operations associated with the possible mutation of the avian form of influenza from birds or other animal species to humans, current human morbidity, and mortality levels persist following such potential mutation;
	•		the mix of products that we sell during any time period;
	•		lower than expected demand for our products;
	•		our responses to price competition;
	•		expenditures as a result of legal actions, including the defense of our patents and other intellectual property;
	•		market acceptance of our products;
	•		the impairment and write-down of goodwill or other intangible assets;
	•		implementation of new or revised accounting or tax rules or policies;
	•		disposition of primary products, technologies and other rights;
	•		termination or expiration of, or the outcome of disputes relating to, trademarks, patents, license agreements and other rights;
	•		increases in insurance rates for existing products and the cost of insurance for new products;
	•		general economic and industry conditions, including changes in interest rates affecting returns on cash balances and investments that affect customer demand;
	•		seasonality of demand for our products;
	•		our level of research and development activities;
	•		new accounting standards and/or changes to existing accounting standards that would have a material effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows;
	•		costs and outcomes of any tax audits or any litigation involving intellectual property, customers or other issues; and
	•		timing of revenue recognition related to licensing agreements and/or strategic collaborations.

     As a result, we believe that period-to-period comparisons of our results of operations are not necessarily meaningful, and these comparisons should not be relied upon as an indication of future performance. The above factors may cause our operating results to fluctuate and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our investments in other companies and our collaborations with companies could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

     We have made substantial investments in companies and entered into significant collaborations with companies. We may use these and other methods to develop or commercialize products in the future.  These arrangements typically involve other pharmaceutical companies as partners that may be competitors of ours in certain markets. In many instances, we will not control these companies or collaborations, and cannot assure you that these ventures will be profitable or that we will not lose any or all of our invested capital.  If these investments and collaborations provide to unsuccessful, our results of operations could materially suffer.

Our profitability is impacted by our continued participation in governmental pharmaceutical pricing programs.

     In order for our products to receive reimbursement by state Medicaid programs, we must participate in the Medicaid drug rebate program. Participation in the program requires us to provide a rebate for each unit of our products that is reimbursed by Medicaid. Rebate amounts for our products are determined by a statutory formula that is based on prices defined by statute: average manufacturer price (“AMP”), which we must calculate for all products that are covered outpatient drugs under the Medicaid program, and best price, which we must calculate only for those of our covered outpatient drugs that are innovator products. We are required to report AMP and best price for each of our covered outpatient drugs to the government on a regular basis. In July 2007, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the federal agency that is responsible for administering the Medicaid drug rebate program, issued a final rule that, among other things, clarifies how manufacturers must calculate both AMP and best price and implements new requirements under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 on the use of AMP to calculate federal upper limits on pharmacy reimbursement amounts under the Medicaid program. These upper limits are used to determine ceilings placed on the amounts that state Medicaid programs can pay for certain prescription drugs using federal dollars. We cannot predict the full impact of these changes, which became effective in part on January 1, 2007 and in part on October 1, 2007, on our business, nor can we predict whether there will be additional federal legislative or regulatory proposals to modify current Medicaid rebate rules.

     To receive reimbursement under state Medicaid programs for our products, we also are required by federal law to provide discounts under other pharmaceutical pricing programs. For example, we are required to enter into a Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contract with the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) under which we must make our covered drugs available to the “Big Four” federal agencies – the VA, the Department of Defense, the Public Health Service, and the Coast Guard – at pricing that is capped pursuant to a statutory Federal ceiling price (“FCP”) formula set forth in the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992 (“VHCA”). The FCP is based on a weighted average wholesaler price known as the “non-federal average manufacturer price,” which manufacturers are required to report on a quarterly and annual basis to the VA. FSS contracts are federal procurement contracts that include standard government terms and conditions and separate pricing for each product. In addition to the Big Four agencies, all other federal agencies and some non-federal entities are authorized to access FSS contracts. FSS contractors are permitted to charge FSS purchasers other than the Big Four agencies “negotiated pricing” for covered drugs that is not capped by the VHCA formula; instead, such pricing is negotiated based on a mandatory disclosure of the contractor’s commercial “most favored customer” pricing. Medicis chooses to offer one single FCP-based FSS contract price for each product to the Big Four agencies as well as all to other FSS purchasers. Medicis also offers products that are not VHCA covered drugs on its FSS contract at negotiated pricing. All items on FSS contracts are subject to a standard FSS contract clause that requires FSS contract price reductions under certain circumstances where pricing to an agreed “tracking customer” is reduced.

     To receive reimbursement under state Medicaid programs for our products, we also are required by federal law to provide discounted purchase prices under the Public Health Service Drug Pricing Program to certain categories of entities defined by statute. The formula for determining the discounted purchase price is defined by statute and is based on the AMP and rebate amount for a particular product as calculated under the Medicaid drug rebate program, discussed above. To the extent that the statutory and regulatory definitions of AMP and the Medicaid rebate amount change as a result of the Deficit Reduction Act and final rule discussed above, these

changes also could impact the discounted purchase prices that we are obligated to provide under this program. We cannot predict the full impact of these changes, which became effective in part on January 1, 2007 and in part on October 1, 2007, on our business, nor can we predict whether there will be additional federal legislative or regulatory proposals to modify current Medicaid rebate rules which then could impact this program as well.

Our profitability may be impacted by our ongoing review of our prior reports under certain Federal pharmaceutical pricing programs.

     Under the terms of our Medicaid drug rebate program agreement and our VA Federal Supply Schedule (“FSS”) contract and related pricing agreements required under the Veterans Health Care Act of 1992, we are required to accurately report our pharmaceutical pricing data, which is based, in part, on accurate classifications of our customers’ classes of trade. On May 1, 2007, and on May 15, 2007, we notified the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs, respectively, that we may have misclassified certain of our customers’ classes of trade, which could affect the prices previously reported under the Medicaid drug rebate program and/or prices on our VA FSS contract. We have been reviewing this issue and have identified certain customer class of trade misclassifications. We are therefore undertaking a review and recalculation of our Non-Federal Average Manufacturer Prices (“Non-FAMPs”) and related Federal Ceiling Prices, Average Manufacturer Prices (“AMPs”), and Best Prices (“BPs”) for a period going back at least (3) years to determine the impact, if any, that reclassification of customers to appropriate classes of trade might have on these reported prices. In doing the recalculation, we will generally review the methodologies for computing the reported prices, the classification of products under the various programs, and any other potentially significant issues identified in the course of the review. We also are conducting a review of our administration of obligations under the Price Reductions Clause in our FSS contract with the VA. It is unclear whether any issue that may be identified during this review may result in any changes to our Medicaid rebate liability for prior quarters or to prices paid under the FSS, or any penalties, or whether any such changes or penalties would have a material impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

We will be unable to meet our anticipated development and commercialization timelines if clinical trials for our products are unsuccessful, delayed, or additional information is required by the FDA.

     The production and marketing of our products and our ongoing research and development, pre-clinical testing and clinical trials activities are subject to extensive regulation and review by numerous governmental authorities. Before obtaining regulatory approvals for the commercial sale of any products, we and/or our partners must demonstrate through pre-clinical testing and clinical trials that our products are safe and effective for use in humans. Conducting clinical trials is a lengthy, time-consuming and expensive process. In addition to testing and approval procedures, extensive regulations also govern marketing, manufacturing, distribution, labeling and record-keeping procedures.

     Completion of clinical trials may take several years or more. Our commencement and rate of completion of clinical trials may be delayed by many factors, including:

	•		lack of efficacy during the clinical trials;
	•		unforeseen safety issues;
	•		slower than expected patient recruitment;
	•		failure of Medicis, investigators, or other contractors to strictly adhere to federal regulations governing the conduct and data collection procedures involved in clinical trials;
	•		development of issues that might delay or impede performance by a contractor;
	•		errors in clinical documentation or at the clinical locations;
	•		non-acceptance by the FDA of our NDAs, ANDAs or BLAs. For example, on January 30, 2008, we received a letter from the FDA stating that, upon a preliminary review of our BLA for the botulinum toxin type A, RELOXIN®, in aesthetics, the FDA has determined not to accept the BLA for filing because it is not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. While we are uncertain of the impact at this time, the FDA’s determination not to accept the BLA may result in delays in the FDA’s substantive response to the BLA;
	•		government or regulatory delays; and
	•		unanticipated requests from the FDA for new or additional information.

     The results from pre-clinical testing and early clinical trials are often not predictive of results obtained in later clinical trials. A number of new products have shown promising results in clinical trials, but subsequently failed to establish sufficient safety and efficacy data to obtain necessary regulatory approvals. Data obtained from pre-clinical and clinical activities are susceptible to varying interpretations, which may delay, limit or prevent regulatory approval. In addition, regulatory delays or rejections may be encountered as a result of many factors, including perceived defects in the design of the clinical trials and changes in regulatory policy during the period of product development. Any delays in, or termination of, our clinical trials could materially and adversely affect our development and commercialization timelines, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Downturns in general economic conditions may adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

     Our business, including our dermal restorative and branded prescription products, may be adversely affected by downturns in general economic conditions. Economic conditions such as employment levels, business conditions, interest rates, energy and fuel costs, consumer confidence and tax rates could change consumer purchasing habits or reduce personal discretionary spending. A reduction in consumer spending may have an adverse impact on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The current condition of the credit markets may not allow us to secure financing for potential future activities on satisfactory terms, or at all.

     Our existing cash and short-term investments are available for dividends, strategic investments, acquisitions of companies or products complimentary to our business, the repayment of outstanding indebtedness, repurchases of our outstanding securities and other potential large-scale needs. While we believe existing cash and short-term investments, together with funds generated from operations, should be sufficient to meet operating requirements for the foreseeable future, we may also consider incurring additional indebtedness and issuing additional debt or equity securities in the future to fund potential acquisitions or investments, to refinance existing debt or for general corporate purposes. As a result of recent subprime loan losses and write-downs, as well as other economic trends in the credit market industry, we may not be able to secure additional financing for future activities on satisfactory terms, or at all, which may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Negative conditions in the credit markets may impair the liquidity of a portion of our short-term and long-term investments.

     Our short-term and long-term investments consist of corporate and various government agency and municipal debt securities and auction rate floating securities. As of December 31, 2007, our short-term investments included $101.7 million of auction rate floating securities. Our auction rate floating securities are debt instruments with a long-term maturity and with an interest rate that is reset in short intervals through auctions. The recent negative conditions in the credit markets have prevented some investors from liquidating their holdings, including their holdings of auction rate floating securities. During February 2008 we were informed that there was insufficient demand at auction for approximately $43.6 million of our auction rate floating securities. As a result, these affected auction rate floating securities are now not considered liquid, and we could be required to hold them until they are redeemed by the holder at maturity. The negative credit markets may affect our other auction rate floating securities as they cycle through the auction process. We may not be able to make the securities liquid until a future auction on these investments is successful. At this time, we have not obtained sufficient evidence to conclude that the fair value of these auction rate floating securities is less than their carrying value or that they will not be settled in the short-term, although the market for these investments is currently uncertain. All of our auction rate auction rate floating securities held as of December 31, 2007 successfully re-set at auction at the first auction interval subsequent to December 31, 2007, and we subsequently liquidated approximately $56.8 million of our auction rate floating securities at par. As of February 26, 2008, we had approximately $44.9 million of auction rate floating securities.

If Q-Med is unable to protect its intellectual property and proprietary rights with respect to our dermal filler products, our business could suffer.

     RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE FINE LINES^TM and SubQ^TM currently have patent protection in the United States until 2015, and the exclusivity period of the license granted to us by Q-Med will terminate on the later of (i) the expiration of the last patent covering the products or (ii) upon the licensed know-how becoming publicly known. If the validity or enforceability of these patents is successfully challenged, the cost to us could be significant and our business may be harmed. For example, if any such challenges are successful, Q-Med may be unable to supply products to us. As a result, we may be unable to market, distribute and commercialize the products or it may no longer be profitable for us to do so.

We may not be able to collect all scheduled license payments from BioMarin.

     As part of our asset purchase agreement, license agreement and securities purchase agreement with BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. (“BioMarin”) discussed in Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements, BioMarin will make license payments to us of $1.75 million per quarter for the two quarters beginning in January 2008 and $1.5 million per quarter for the subsequent four quarters beginning in July 2008. While we did receive all scheduled quarterly license payments during 2007, 2006, the Transition Period and fiscal 2005, we cannot give any assurances as to BioMarin’s continuing ability to make these payments to us. Currently, our revenue recognition of these payments is on a cash basis. In addition, while we expect BioMarin to make the final payment of $70.6 million to us in 2009 for the purchase of all of the outstanding shares of Ascent Pediatrics, we cannot give any assurances as to BioMarin’s ability to make this payment. If BioMarin defaults on its obligations to make the required payments, we may be forced to incur indebtedness or otherwise reallocate our financial resources to cover the loss of these expected cash payments.

We depend upon our key personnel and our ability to attract, train, and retain employees.

     Our success depends significantly on the continued individual and collective contributions of our senior management team, and Jonah Shacknai, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, in particular. While we have entered into employment agreements with many members of our senior management team, the loss of the services of any member of our senior management for any reason or the inability to hire and retain experienced management personnel could adversely affect our ability to execute our business plan and harm our operating results. In addition, our future success depends on our ability to hire, train and retain skilled employees. Competition for these employees is intense.

We may acquire (whether by acquisition, license or otherwise) technologies, products and companies in the future and these acquisitions could disrupt our business and harm our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, we may not obtain the benefits that the acquisitions were intended to create.

     As part of our business strategy, we regularly consider and, as appropriate, make acquisitions (whether by acquisition, license or otherwise) of technologies, products and companies that we believe are complementary to our business. Acquisitions typically entail many risks and could result in difficulties in integrating the operations, personnel, technologies, products and companies acquired, and may result in significant charges to earnings. If we are unable to successfully integrate our acquisitions with our existing business, or we otherwise make an acquisition that does not result in the benefits that we anticipated, our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows could be materially and adversely affected, which would adversely affect our ability to develop and introduce new products and the market price of our stock. In addition, in connection with acquisitions, we could experience disruption in our business or employee base, or key employees of companies that we acquire may seek employment elsewhere, including with our competitors. Furthermore, the products of companies we acquire may overlap with our products or those of our customers, creating conflicts with existing relationships or with other commitments that are detrimental to the combined businesses.

We may not be able to identify and acquire products, technologies and businesses on acceptable terms, if at all, which may constrain our growth.

     Our strategy for continued growth includes the acquisition of products, technologies and businesses. These acquisitions could involve acquiring other pharmaceutical companies’ assets, products or technologies. In addition, we may seek to obtain licenses or other rights to develop, manufacture and distribute products. We cannot be certain that we will be able to identify suitable acquisition or licensing candidates, if they will be accretive in the near future, or if any will be available on acceptable terms. Other pharmaceutical companies, with greater financial, marketing and sales resources than we have, are also attempting to grow through similar acquisition and licensing strategies. Because of their greater resources, our competitors may be able to offer better terms for an acquisition or license than we can offer, or they may be able to demonstrate a greater ability to market licensed products. In addition, even if we identify potential acquisitions and enter into definitive agreements relating to such acquisitions, we may not be able to consummate planned acquisitions on the terms originally agreed upon or at all. For example, on March 20, 2005, we entered into an agreement and plan of merger with Inamed, pursuant to which we agreed to acquire Inamed. On December 13, 2005, we entered into a merger termination agreement with Inamed following Allergan Inc.’s exchange offer for all outstanding shares of Inamed, which was commenced on November 21, 2005.

Our success depends on our ability to manage our growth.

     We have experienced a period of rapid growth from both acquisitions and internal expansion of our operations. This growth has placed significant demands on our human and financial resources. We must continue to improve our operational, financial and management information controls and systems and effectively motivate, train and manage our employees to properly manage this growth. If we do not manage this growth effectively, maintain the quality of our products despite the demands on our resources and retain key personnel, our business could be harmed.

Implementation of our new enterprise resource planning system could cause business interruptions and negatively affect our profitability and cash flows.

     During 2007, we began developing and implementing a new enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system to integrate and improve the financial and operational aspects of our business. A significant portion our new ERP system began to be utilized on January 1, 2008. The design and implementation of an ERP system, which will continue in 2008, involves risks such as cost overruns, project delays and business interruption. A significant amount of our resources have been committed to the ERP project, and we may experience challenges in designing and implementing the new ERP system that could adversely affect our operations and our ability to timely and accurately process and report key components of our financial position. If we experience a material business interruption as a result of our design and implementation of our new ERP system, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and cash flows.

The consolidation of drug wholesalers could increase competition and pricing pressures throughout the pharmaceutical industry.

     We sell our pharmaceutical products primarily through major wholesalers. These customers comprise a significant part of the distribution network for pharmaceutical products in the United States. This distribution network is continuing to undergo significant consolidation marked by mergers and acquisitions. As a result, a smaller number of large wholesale distributors control a significant share of the market. In addition, the number of independent drug stores and small chains has decreased as retail consolidation has occurred. Further consolidation among, or any financial difficulties of, distributors or retailers could result in the combination or elimination of warehouses which may result in product returns to us, cause a reduction in the inventory levels of distributors and retailers, result in reductions in purchases of our products or increase competitive and pricing pressures on pharmaceutical manufacturers, any of which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely on others to manufacture our products.

     Currently, we outsource all of our product manufacturing needs. Typically, our manufacturing contracts are short-term. We are dependent upon renewing agreements with our existing manufacturers or finding replacement manufacturers to satisfy our requirements. As a result, we cannot be certain that manufacturing sources will continue to be available or that we can continue to outsource the manufacturing of our products on reasonable or acceptable terms.

     The underlying cost to us for manufacturing our products is established in our agreements with these outside manufacturers. Because of the short-term nature of these agreements, our expenses for manufacturing are not fixed and could change from contract to contract. If the cost of production increases, our gross margins could be negatively affected.

     In addition, we rely on outside manufacturers to provide us with an adequate and reliable supply of our products on a timely basis. Loss of a supplier or any difficulties that arise in the supply chain could significantly affect our inventories and supply of products available for sale. We do not have alternative sources of supply for all of our products. If a primary supplier of any of our primary products is unable to fulfill our requirements for any reason, it could reduce our sales, margins and market share, as well as harm our overall business and financial results. If we are unable to supply sufficient amounts of our products on a timely basis, our revenues and market share could decrease and, correspondingly, our profitability could decrease.

     Under several exclusive supply agreements, with certain exceptions, we must purchase most of our product supply from specific manufacturers. If any of these exclusive manufacturer or supplier relationships were terminated, we would be forced to find a replacement manufacturer or supplier. The FDA requires that all manufacturers used by pharmaceutical companies comply with the FDA’s regulations, including the cGMP regulations applicable to manufacturing processes. The cGMP validation of a new facility and the approval of that manufacturer for a new drug product may take a year or more before manufacture can begin at the facility. Delays in obtaining FDA validation of a replacement manufacturing facility could cause an interruption in the supply of our products. Although we have business interruption insurance to assist in covering the loss of income for products where we do not have a secondary manufacturer, which may mitigate the harm to us from the interruption of the manufacturing of our largest selling products caused by certain events, the loss of a manufacturer could still cause a reduction in our sales, margins and market share, as well as harm our overall business and financial results.

We and our third-party manufacturers rely on a limited number of suppliers of the raw materials of our products. A disruption in supply of raw material would be disruptive to our inventory supply.

     We and the manufacturers of our products rely on suppliers of raw materials used in the production of our products. Some of these materials are available from only one source and others may become available from only one source. We try to maintain inventory levels that are no greater than necessary to meet our current projections, which could have the effect of exacerbating supply problems. Any interruption in the supply of finished products could hinder our ability to timely distribute finished products. If we are unable to obtain adequate product supplies to satisfy our customers’ orders, we may lose those orders and our customers may cancel other orders and stock and sell competing products. This, in turn, could cause a loss of our market share and reduce our revenues. In addition, any disruption in the supply of raw materials or an increase in the cost of raw materials to our manufacturers could have a significant effect on their ability to supply us with our products, which would adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We could experience difficulties in obtaining supplies of RESTYLANE ^® ,PERLANE ^® , RESTYLANE FINE LINES ^TM and SubQ ^TM.

     The manufacturing process to create bulk non-animal stabilized hyaluronic acid necessary to produce RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE FINE LINES^TM and SubQ^TM products is technically complex and requires significant lead-time. Any failure by us to accurately forecast demand for finished product could result in an interruption in the supply of RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE FINE LINES^TM and SubQ^TM products and a resulting decrease in sales of the products.

     We depend exclusively on Q-Med for our supply of RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE FINE LINES^TM and SubQ^TM products. There are currently no alternative suppliers of these products. Q-Med has committed to supply RESTYLANE^® to us under a long-term license that is subject to customary conditions and our delivery of specified milestone payments. Q-Med manufactures RESTYLANE^®, PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE FINE LINES^TM and SubQ^TM at its facility in Uppsala, Sweden. We cannot be certain that Q-Med will be able to meet our current or future supply requirements. Any impairment of Q-Med’s manufacturing capacities could significantly affect our inventories and our supply of products available for sale, which would materially and adversely affect our results of operations.

Supply interruptions may disrupt our inventory levels and the availability of our products.

     Numerous factors could cause interruptions in the supply of our finished products, including:

	•		timing, scheduling and prioritization of production by our contract manufacturers;
	•		labor interruptions;
	•		changes in our sources for manufacturing;
	•		the timing and delivery of domestic and international shipments;
	•		our failure to locate and obtain replacement manufacturers as needed on a timely basis;
	•		conditions affecting the cost and availability of raw materials; and
	•		hurricanes and other natural disasters.

     We estimate customer demand for our prescription products primarily through use of third party syndicated data sources which track prescriptions written by health care providers and dispensed by licensed pharmacies. The data represents extrapolations from information provided only by certain pharmacies, and are estimates of historical demand levels. We estimate customer demand for our non-prescription products primarily through internal data that we compile. We observe trends from these data, and, coupled with certain proprietary information, prepare demand forecasts that are the basis for purchase orders for finished and component inventory from our third party manufacturers and suppliers. Our forecasts may fail to accurately anticipate ultimate customer demand for products. Overestimates of demand may result in excessive inventory production and underestimates may result in inadequate supply of our products in channels of distribution.

     We sell our products primarily to major wholesalers and retail pharmacy chains. Approximately 65-75% of our gross revenues are typically derived from two major drug wholesale concerns. While we attempt to estimate inventory levels of our products at our major wholesale customers by using written and oral information obtained from certain wholesalers, historical prescription information and historical purchase patterns, this process is inherently imprecise. We rely wholly upon our wholesale and drug chain customers to effect the distribution allocation of substantially all of our products.

     We periodically offer promotions to wholesale and chain drugstore customers to encourage dispensing of our prescription products, consistent with prescriptions written by licensed health care providers. Because many of our prescription products compete in multi-source markets, it is important for us to ensure the licensed health care providers’ dispensing instructions are fulfilled with our branded products and are not substituted with a generic product or another therapeutic alternative product which may be contrary to the licensed health care providers’ recommended prescribed Medicis brand. We believe that a critical component of our brand protection program is maintenance of full product availability at drugstore and wholesale customers. We believe such availability reduces the probability of local and regional product substitutions, shortages and backorders, which could result in lost sales. We expect to continue providing favorable terms to wholesale and retail drug chain customers as may be necessary to ensure the fullest possible distribution of our branded products within the pharmaceutical chain of commerce.

     We cannot control or influence greatly the purchasing patterns of our wholesale and retail drug chain customers. They are highly sophisticated customers who purchase our products in a manner consistent with their industry practices and, presumably, based upon their projected demand levels. Purchases by any given customer, during any given period, may be above or below actual prescription volumes of any of our products during the same period, resulting in fluctuations in product inventory in the distribution channel. Any decision made by management to reduce wholesale inventory levels will decrease our product revenue.

Fluctuations in demand for our products create inventory maintenance uncertainties.

     We schedule our inventory purchases to meet anticipated customer demand. As a result, miscalculation of customer demand or relatively small delays in our receipt of manufactured products could result in revenues being deferred or lost. Our operating expenses are based upon anticipated sales levels, and a high percentage of our operating expenses are relatively fixed in the short term. Depending on the customer, we recognize revenue at the time of shipment to the customer, or at the time of receipt by the customer, net of estimated provisions. Consequently, variations in the timing of revenue recognition could cause significant fluctuations in operating results from period to period and may result in unanticipated periodic earnings shortfalls or losses.

We selectively outsource certain non-sales and non-marketing services, and cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain adequate supplies of such services on acceptable terms.

     To enable us to focus on our core marketing and sales activities, we selectively outsource certain non-sales and non-marketing functions, such as laboratory research, manufacturing and warehousing. As we expand our activities, we expect to expend additional financial resources in these areas. We typically do not enter into long-term manufacturing contracts with third party manufacturers. Whether or not such contracts exist, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain adequate supplies of such services or products in a timely fashion, on acceptable terms, or at all.

Importation of products from Canada and other countries into the United States may lower the prices we receive for our products.

     Our products are subject to competition from lower priced versions of our products and competing products from Canada and other countries where government price controls or other market dynamics result in lower prices. The ability of patients and other customers to obtain these lower priced imports has grown significantly as a result of the Internet, an expansion of pharmacies in Canada and elsewhere targeted to American purchasers, the increase in United States-based businesses affiliated with Canadian pharmacies marketing to American purchasers, and other factors. Most of these foreign imports are illegal under current United States law. However, the volume of imports continues to rise due to the limited enforcement resources of the FDA and the United States Customs Service, and there is increased political pressure to permit the imports as a mechanism for expanding access to lower priced medicines.

     In December 2003, Congress enacted the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement and Modernization Act of 2003. This law contains provisions that may change United States import laws and expand consumers’ ability to import lower priced versions of our and competing products from Canada, where there are government price controls. These changes to United States import laws will not take effect unless and until the Secretary of Health and Human Services certifies that the changes will lead to substantial savings for consumers and will not create a public health safety issue. The former Secretary of Health and Human Services did not make such a certification. However, it is possible that the current Secretary or a subsequent Secretary could make the certification in the future. As directed by Congress, a task force on drug importation recently conducted a comprehensive study regarding the circumstances under which drug importation could be safely conducted and the consequences of importation on the health, medical costs and development of new medicines for United States consumers. The task force issued its report in December 2004, finding that there are significant safety and economic issues that must be addressed before importation of prescription drugs is permitted, and the current Secretary has not yet announced any plans to make the required certification. In addition, federal legislative proposals have been made to implement the changes to the United States import laws without any certification, and to broaden permissible imports in other ways. Even if the changes to the United States import laws do not take effect, and other changes are not enacted, imports from Canada and elsewhere may continue to increase due to market and political forces, and the limited enforcement resources of the FDA, the United States Customs Service and other government agencies.

     The importation of foreign products adversely affects our profitability in the United States. This impact could become more significant in the future, and the impact could be even greater if there is a further change in the law or if state or local governments take further steps to facilitate the importation of products from abroad.

If we become subject to product liability claims, our earnings and financial condition could suffer.

     We are exposed to risks of product liability claims from allegations that our products resulted in adverse effects to the patient or others. These risks exist even with respect to those products that are approved for commercial sale by the FDA and manufactured in facilities licensed and regulated by the FDA.

     In addition to our desire to reduce the scope of our potential exposure to these types of claims, many of our customers require us to maintain product liability insurance as a condition of conducting business with us. We currently carry product liability insurance in the amount of $50.0 million per claim and $50.0 million in the aggregate on a claims-made basis. Nevertheless, this insurance may not be sufficient to cover all claims made against us. Insurance coverage is expensive and may be difficult to obtain. As a result, we cannot be certain that our current coverage will continue to be available in the future on reasonable terms, if at all. If we are liable for any product liability claims in excess of our coverage or outside of our coverage, the cost and expense of such liability could cause our earnings and financial condition to suffer.

If we suffer negative publicity concerning the safety of our products, our sales may be harmed and we may be forced to withdraw products.

     Physicians and potential patients may have a number of concerns about the safety of our products, whether or not such concerns have a basis in generally accepted science or peer-reviewed scientific research. Negative publicity, whether accurate or inaccurate, concerning our products could reduce market or governmental acceptance of our products and could result in decreased product demand or product withdrawal. In addition, significant negative publicity could result in an increased number of product liability claims, whether or not these claims are supported by applicable law.

Rising insurance costs could negatively impact profitability.

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

RESTYLANE ^® and PERLANE ^® are consumer products and as such, are susceptible to changes in popular trends and applicable laws, which could adversely affect sales or product margins of RESTYLANE ^® and PERLANE ^®.

     RESTYLANE ^® and PERLANE^® are consumer products. If we fail to anticipate, identify or react to competitive products or if consumer preferences in the cosmetic marketplace shift to other treatments for the treatment of fine lines, wrinkles and deep facial folds, we may experience a decline in demand for RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^®. In addition, the popular media has at times in the past produced, and may continue in the future to produce, negative reports regarding the efficacy, safety or side effects of facial aesthetic products. Consumer perceptions of RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® may be negatively impacted by these reports and other reasons.

     Demand for RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® may be materially adversely affected by changing economic conditions. Generally, the costs of cosmetic procedures are borne by individuals without reimbursement from their medical insurance providers or government programs. Individuals may be less willing to incur the costs of these procedures in weak or uncertain economic environments, and demand for RESTYLANE^® and PERLANE^® could be adversely affected.

We may not be able to repurchase the Old Notes and New Notes when required.

     In June 2002, we sold Contingent Convertible Senior Notes, due in 2032 (the “Old Notes”), in the amount of $400.0 million. In August 2003, we exchanged approximately $230.8 million in principal of these Old Notes for approximately $283.9 million of our Contingent Convertible Senior Notes due in 2033 (the “New Notes”).

     On June 4, 2012 and 2017 or upon the occurrence of a change in control, holders of the remaining Old Notes may require us to offer to repurchase their Old Notes for cash. On June 4, 2008, 2013 and 2018 or upon the occurrence of a change in control, holders of the New Notes may require us to offer to repurchase their New Notes for cash. If a significant portion of the holders of the New Notes require us to repurchase their New Notes on June 4, 2008, we may not have sufficient funds on June 4, 2008 or at the time of any such events to make the required repurchases. If all of the New Notes are put back to us on June 4, 2008, we would be required to pay $283.9 million in outstanding principal, plus outstanding accrued interest. We would also be required to pay an accumulated deferred tax liability related to the New Notes. The deferred tax liability related to the New Notes as of December 31, 2007 was $30.6 million.

     The source of funds for any repurchase required as a result of any such events will be our available cash or cash generated from operating activities or other sources, including borrowings, sales of assets, sales of equity or funds provided by a new controlling entity. We cannot assure you, however, that sufficient funds will be available at the time of any such events to make any required repurchases of the Notes tendered. If sufficient funds are not available to repurchase the Notes, we may be forced to incur other indebtedness or otherwise reallocate our financial resources. Furthermore, the use of available cash to fund the repurchase of the Old Notes or New Notes may impair our ability to obtain additional financing in the future.

Our publicly-filed reports are reviewed by the SEC from time to time and any significant changes required as a result of any such review may result in material liability to us, and have a material adverse impact on the trading price of our common stock.

     The reports of publicly-traded companies are subject to review by the SEC from time to time for the purpose of assisting companies in complying with applicable disclosure requirements and to enhance the overall effectiveness of companies’ public filings, and comprehensive reviews of such reports are now required at least every three years under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. SEC reviews may be initiated at any time. While we believe that our previously filed SEC reports comply, and we intend that all future reports will comply in all material respects with the published rules and regulations of the SEC, we could be required to modify or reformulate information contained in prior filings as a result of an SEC review. Any modification or reformulation of information contained in such reports could be significant and result in material liability to us and have a material adverse impact on the trading price of our common stock.

Unanticipated changes in our tax rates or exposure to additional income tax liabilities could affect our profitability.

     We are subject to income taxes in both the U.S. and other foreign jurisdictions. Our effective tax rate could be adversely affected by changes in the mix of earnings in countries with different statutory tax rates, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets and liabilities, changes in or interpretations of tax laws including pending tax law changes (such as the research and development credit and the deductibility of executive compensation), changes in our manufacturing activities and changes in our future levels of research and development spending. In addition, we are subject to the periodic examination of our income tax returns by the Internal Revenue Service and other tax authorities. We regularly assess the likelihood of outcomes resulting from these examinations to determine the adequacy of our provision for income taxes. There can be no assurance that the outcomes from these periodic examinations will not have an adverse effect on our provision for income taxes and estimated income tax liabilities.

Risks Related to Our Industry

The growth of managed care organizations, other third-party reimbursement policies, state regulatory agencies and retailer fulfillment policies may harm our pricing, which may reduce our market share and margins.

     Our operating results and business success depend in large part on the availability of adequate third-party payor reimbursement to patients for our prescription-brand products. These third-party payors include governmental entities such as Medicaid, private health insurers and managed care organizations. Because of the size of the patient population covered by managed care organizations, marketing of prescription drugs to them and the pharmacy benefit managers that serve many of these organizations has become important to our business.

     The trend toward managed healthcare in the United States and the growth of managed care organizations could significantly influence the purchase of pharmaceutical products, resulting in lower prices and a reduction in product demand. Managed care organizations and other third party payors try to negotiate the pricing of medical services and products to control their costs. Managed care organizations and pharmacy benefit managers typically develop formularies to reduce their cost for medications. Formularies can be based on the prices and therapeutic benefits of the available products. Due to their lower costs, generic products are often favored. The breadth of the products covered by formularies varies considerably from one managed care organization to another, and many formularies include alternative and competitive products for treatment of particular medical conditions. Exclusion of a product from a formulary can lead to its sharply reduced usage in the managed care organization patient population. Payment or reimbursement of only a portion of the cost of our prescription products could make our products less attractive, from a net-cost perspective, to patients, suppliers and prescribing physicians. We cannot be certain that the reimbursement policies of these entities will be adequate for our pharmaceutical products to compete on a price basis. If our products are not included within an adequate number of formularies or adequate reimbursement levels are not provided, or if those policies increasingly favor generic products, our market share and gross margins could be harmed, as could our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

     In addition, healthcare reform could affect our ability to sell our products and may have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

     Some of our products are not of a type generally eligible for reimbursement. It is possible that products manufactured by others could address the same effects as our products and be subject to reimbursement. If this were the case, some of our products may be unable to compete on a price basis. In addition, decisions by state regulatory agencies, including state pharmacy boards, and/or retail pharmacies may require substitution of generic for branded products, may prefer competitors’ products over our own, and may impair our pricing and thereby constrain our market share and growth.

     Managed care initiatives to control costs have influenced primary-care physicians to refer fewer patients to dermatologists and other specialists. Further reductions in these referrals could reduce the size of our potential market, and harm our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We are subject to extensive governmental regulation.

     Pharmaceutical companies are subject to significant regulation by a number of national, state and local governments and agencies. The FDA administers requirements covering testing, manufacturing, safety, effectiveness, labeling, storage, record keeping, approval, sampling, advertising and promotion of our products. Several states have also instituted laws and regulations covering some of these same areas. In addition, the FTC and state and local authorities regulate the advertising of over-the-counter drugs and cosmetics. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could, among other things, result in:

	•		fines;
	•		changes to advertising;
	•		suspensions of regulatory approvals of products;
	•		product recalls;

	•		delays in product distribution, marketing and sale; and
	•		civil or criminal sanctions.

     Our prescription and over-the-counter products receive FDA review regarding their safety and effectiveness. However, the FDA is permitted to revisit and change its prior determinations. We cannot be sure that the FDA will not change its position with regard to the safety or effectiveness of our products. If the FDA’s position changes, we may be required to change our labeling or formulations or cease to manufacture and market the challenged products. Even prior to any formal regulatory action, we could voluntarily decide to cease distribution and sale or recall any of our products if concerns about their safety or effectiveness develop.

     Before marketing any drug that is considered a “new drug” by the FDA, the FDA must provide its approval of the product. All products which are considered drugs which are not “new drugs” and that generally are recognized by the FDA as safe and effective for use do not require the FDA’s approval. We believe that some of our products, as they are promoted and intended for use, are exempt from treatment as “new drugs” and are not subject to approval by the FDA. The FDA, however, could take a contrary position, and we could be required to seek FDA approval of those products and the marketing of those products. We could also be required to withdraw those products from the market. For example, in the August 29, 2006 Federal Register, the FDA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to categorically establish that over-the-counter skin bleaching drug products are not generally recognized as safe and effective and are misbranded. If the proposed rule is adopted, all manufacturers of skin bleaching products would be required to remove their products from the market and obtain FDA approval prior to re-entering the U.S. market. The FDA has issued a Guidance document entitled “Marketed Unapproved Drugs – Compliance Policy Guide.” During a public workshop on January 9, 2007 concerning this Guidance, the FDA was reported to have stated the intention to accelerate its evaluation of such products. ESOTERICA^® is an over-the-counter product line that we sell that contains bleaching products that would be regulated by the proposed rule and if that occurs we do not currently intend to invest in obtaining an approved NDA for this product line. This product accounted for approximately $2.1 million in restated net revenues during 2007.

     Sales representative activities may also be subject to the Voluntary Compliance Guidance issued for pharmaceutical manufacturers by the Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) of the Department of Health and Human Services, as well as state laws and regulations. We have established compliance program policies and training programs for our sales force, which we believe are appropriate. The OIG and/or state law enforcement entities, however, could take a contrary position, and we could be required to modify our sales representative activities. See Item 3 of Part I of this amended report, “Legal Proceedings” and Note 16, “Commitments and Contingencies,” in the notes to the consolidated financial statements listed under Item 15 of Part IV of this amended report, “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules,” for information concerning our current litigation.

We face significant competition within our industry.

     The pharmaceutical and dermal aesthetics industries are highly competitive. Competition in our industry occurs on a variety of fronts, including:

	•		developing and bringing new products to market before others;
	•		developing new technologies to improve existing products;
	•		developing new products to provide the same benefits as existing products at less cost; and
	•		developing new products to provide benefits superior to those of existing products.

     The intensely competitive environment requires an ongoing, extensive search for technological innovations and the ability to market products effectively. Consequently, we must continue to develop and introduce products in a timely and cost-efficient manner to effectively compete in the marketplace and maintain our revenue and gross margins.

     Our competitors vary depending upon product categories. Many of our competitors are large, well-established companies in the fields of pharmaceuticals, chemicals, cosmetics and health care. Among our largest competitors are Allergan, Galderma, Johnson & Johnson, Sanofi-Aventis, Stiefel Laboratories, Warner Chilcott and others.

     Many of these companies have greater resources than we do to devote to marketing, sales, research and development and acquisitions. As a result, they have a greater ability to undertake more extensive research and development, marketing and pricing policy programs. It is possible that our competitors may develop new or improved products to treat the same conditions as our products or make technological advances reducing their cost of production so that they may engage in price competition through aggressive pricing policies to secure a greater market share to our detriment. These competitors also may develop products that make our current or future products obsolete. Any of these events could significantly harm our business, financial condition and results of operations, including reducing our market share, gross margins, and cash flows.

     We sell and distribute prescription brands, medical devices and over-the-counter products. Each of these products competes with products produced by others to treat the same conditions. Several of our prescription products compete with generic pharmaceuticals, which claim to offer equivalent benefit at a lower cost. In some cases, insurers and other health care payment organizations try to encourage the use of these less expensive generic brands through their prescription benefits coverage and reimbursement policies. These organizations may make the generic alternative more attractive to the patient by providing different amounts of reimbursement so that the net cost of the generic product to the patient is less than the net cost of our prescription brand product. Aggressive pricing policies by our generic product competitors and the prescription benefits policies of third party payors could cause us to lose market share or force us to reduce our gross margins in response.

     There are several dermal filler products under development and/or in the FDA pipeline for approval, including products from Johnson & Johnson and Mentor, which claim to offer equivalent or greater facial aesthetic benefits to RESTYLANE^® and, if approved, the companies producing such products could charge less to doctors for their products.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

     We have received no written comments regarding our periodic or current reports from the Staff of the SEC that were issued 180 days or more preceding the end of 2007 and that remain unresolved.

Item 2. Properties

     Our office space in Scottsdale, Arizona has approximately 75,000 square feet under an amended lease agreement that expires in December 2010. The average annual expense under the amended lease agreement is approximately $2.1 million. The lease contains certain rent escalation clauses and, upon expiration, can be renewed for two additional periods of five years each. We intend to vacate this office space during the second quarter of 2008 and move to a new facility (discussed below). We intend to sublet this office space at lease rates equal to or greater than our existing lease obligation.

     During July 2006, we completed a lease agreement for new headquarter office space to accommodate our expected long-term growth. The first phase of the lease is for approximately 150,000 square feet with the right to expand. We expect to occupy the new headquarter office space, which is located approximately one mile from our current headquarter office space in Scottsdale, Arizona, in the second quarter of 2008. The term of the lease is twelve years.

     During October 2006, we executed a lease agreement for additional headquarter office space, which is also located approximately one mile from our current headquarter office space in Scottsdale, Arizona to accommodate our current needs and future growth. Under this agreement, approximately 21,000 square feet of office space is being leased for a period of three years. In May 2007, we began occupancy of the additional headquarter office space.

     Medicis Aesthetics Canada Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary, presently leases approximately 3,600 square feet of office space in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, under a lease agreement, as extended, that expires in June 2009.

     Rent expense was approximately $2.5 million, $2.2 million, $1.2 million, $1.1 million and $2.3 million for 2007, 2006, the Transition Period, the comparable six-month period in 2004 and fiscal 2005, respectively.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

     As discussed elsewhere in this Form 10-K/A and in Note 2 to our restated consolidated financial statements, we have restated our financial statements for the annual, transition and quarterly periods in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008 in this Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2007 and Forms 10-Q/A for the quarterly periods ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008. We have discussed this matter with the SEC’s Division of Enforcement and have committed to cooperating fully with the SEC in connection with any questions they may have. Consistent with good corporate governance, the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors, working with its independent counsel and forensic accountants, conducted an independent inquiry into the matters giving rise to our need to restate our financial statements (the “Internal Inquiry”). After completing the Internal Inquiry, the Audit Committee concluded that the need to restate our consolidated financial statements was not the result of any fraud or intentional wrongdoing on the part of any of our directors, officers or other employees. The Audit Committee also noted that our independent registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP, was aware of and discussed with us on several occasions in the past our methodology of accounting for sales return reserves. Neither the Company nor Ernst & Young LLP has previously identified the misinterpretation and misapplication of generally accepted accounting principles with respect to our sales return reserves prior to the PCAOB review, and Ernst & Young LLP expressed unqualified opinions on our consolidated financial statements and our internal control over financial reporting for each of the now-restated annual and transition periods.

     On October 3, 10, and 27, 2008, purported stockholder class action lawsuits styled Andrew Hall v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01821-MHB); Steamfitters Local 449 Pension Fund v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01870-DKD); and Darlene Oliver v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-01964-JAT) were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of stockholders who purchased our securities during the period between October 30, 2003 and approximately September 24, 2008. The complaints name as defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. and our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, Jonah Shacknai, our Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Treasurer, Richard D. Peterson, and our Chief Operating Officer and Executive Vice President, Mark A. Prygocki. Plaintiffs’ claims arise in connection with the restatement of our annual, transition, and quarterly periods in fiscal years 2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008. The complaints allege violations of federal securities laws, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, based on alleged material misrepresentations to the market that had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of our stock. The plaintiffs seek to recover unspecified damages and costs, including counsel and expert fees. We intend to vigorously defend the claims in these matters. There can be no assurance, however, that we will be successful, and an adverse resolution of the lawsuits could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations in the period in which the lawsuits are resolved. We are not presently able to reasonably estimate potential losses, if any, related to the lawsuits.

     On January 15, 2008, IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. filed a lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that our U.S. Patent No. 5,908,838 related to SOLODYN^® is invalid and is not infringed by IMPAX’s filing of an Abbreviated New Drug Application for a generic version of SOLODYN^®.

     On April 25, 2007, we entered into a Settlement Agreement with the Justice Department, the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services (“OIG”) and the TRICARE Management Activity (collectively, the “United States”) and private complainants to settle all outstanding federal and state civil suits against us in connection with claims related to our alleged off-label marketing and promotion of LOPROX^® and LOPROX^® TS products to pediatricians during periods prior to our May 2004 disposition of our pediatric sales division (the “Settlement Agreement”). The settlement is neither an admission of liability by us nor a concession by the United States that its claims are not well founded. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, we agreed to pay approximately $10 million to settle the matter. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the United States released us from the claims asserted by the United States and agreed to refrain from instituting action seeking exclusion from

Medicare, Medicaid, the TRICARE Program and other federal health care programs for the alleged conduct. These releases relate solely to the allegations related to us and do not cover individuals. The Settlement Agreement also provides that the private complainants release us and our officers, directors and employees from the asserted claims, and we release the United States and the private complainants from asserted claims.

     As part of the settlement, we have entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (the “CIA”) with the OIG to resolve any potential administrative claims the OIG may have arising out of the government’s investigation. The CIA acknowledges the existence of our comprehensive existing compliance program and provides for certain other compliance-related activities during the term of the CIA, including the maintenance of a compliance program that, among other things, is designed to ensure compliance with the CIA, federal health care programs and FDA requirements. Pursuant to the CIA, we are required to notify the OIG, in writing, of: (i) any ongoing government investigation or legal proceeding involving an allegation that we have committed a crime or has engaged in fraudulent activities; (ii) any other matter that a reasonable person would consider a probable violation of applicable criminal, civil, or administrative laws; (iii) any written report, correspondence, or communication to the FDA that materially discusses any unlawful or improper promotion of our products; and (iv) any change in location, sale, closing, purchase, or establishment of a new business unit or location related to items or services that may be reimbursed by Federal health care programs. We are also subject to periodic reporting and certification requirements attesting that the provisions of the CIA are being implemented and followed, as well as certain document and record retention mandates. We have hired a Chief Compliance Officer and created an enterprise-wide compliance function to administer our obligations under the CIA. Failure to comply under the CIA could result in substantial civil or criminal penalties and being excluded from government health care programs, which could materially reduce our sales and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

     On or about October 12, 2006, we and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas entered into a Nonprosecution Agreement wherein the government agreed not to prosecute us for any alleged criminal violations relating to the alleged off-label marketing and promotion of LOPROX^®. In exchange for the government’s agreement not to pursue any criminal charges against us, we agreed to continue cooperating with the government in its ongoing investigation into whether past and present employees and officers may have violated federal criminal law regarding alleged off-label marketing and promotion of LOPROX^® to pediatricians. As a result of the investigation, prosecutions and other proceedings, certain past and present sales and marketing employees and officers are likely to separate from the Company and, together with the cost of their defense, fines and penalties, could have a material impact on our reputation, business and financial condition.

     On October 27, 2005, we filed suit against Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc. of Plymouth, Minnesota and against Prasco Laboratories of Cincinnati, Ohio for infringement of Patent No. 6,905,675 entitled “Sulfur Containing Dermatological Compositions and Methods for Reducing Malodors in Dermatological Compositions” covering our sodium sulfacetamide/sulfur technology. This intellectual property is related to our PLEXION^® Cleanser product. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, and seeks an award of damages, as well as a preliminary and a permanent injunction. A hearing on our preliminary injunction motion was heard on March 8 and March 9, 2006. On May 2, 2006, an order denying the motion for a preliminary injunction was received by Medicis. The Court has entered an order staying the case until the conclusion of a patent reexamination request submitted by Medicis.

     In addition to the matters discussed above, we and certain of our subsidiaries are parties to other actions and proceedings incident to our business, including litigation regarding our intellectual property, challenges to the enforceability or validity of our intellectual property and claims that our products infringe on the intellectual property rights of others. We record contingent liabilities resulting from claims against us when it is probable (as that word is defined in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5) that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable.  We disclose material contingent liabilities when there is a reasonable possibility that the ultimate loss will exceed the recorded liability.  Estimating probable losses requires analysis of multiple factors, in some cases including judgments about the potential actions of third-party claimants and courts.  Therefore, actual losses in any future period are inherently uncertain.  In all of the cases noted where we are the defendant, we believe we have meritorious defenses to the claims in these actions and resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or results of operation; however, the results of the proceedings are uncertain, and there can be no assurance to that effect.

PART II

Item 5.		Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Description of Registrant’s Securities, Price Range of Common Stock and Dividends Declared

     Our Class A common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol “MRX”. The following table sets forth the high and low sale prices for our Class A common stock on the New York Stock Exchange for the fiscal periods indicated:

										DIVIDENDS
		HIGH				LOW				DECLARED
FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007
First Quarter		$	39.94			$	30.11			$	0.03
Second Quarter			34.35				29.70				0.03
Third Quarter			31.48				26.65				0.03
Fourth Quarter			32.18				25.37				0.03
FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006
First Quarter		$	34.40			$	28.20			$	0.03
Second Quarter			34.90				23.54				0.03
Third Quarter			32.46				22.57				0.03
Fourth Quarter			40.31				32.08				0.03

     On February 22, 2008, the last reported sale price on the New York Stock Exchange for Medicis’ Class A common stock was $19.44 per share. As of such date, there were approximately 192 holders of record of Class A common stock.

Dividend Policy

     We do not have a dividend policy. Since July 2003, we have paid quarterly cash dividends aggregating approximately $28.5 million on our common stock. In addition, on December 12, 2007, we declared a cash dividend of $0.03 per issued and outstanding share of common stock payable on January 31, 2008 to our stockholders of record at the close of business on January 2, 2008. Prior to these dividends, we had not paid a cash dividend on our common stock. Any future determinations to pay cash dividends will be at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will be dependent upon our financial condition, operating results, capital requirements and other factors that our Board of Directors deems relevant.

     Our 1.5% Contingent Convertible Senior Notes due 2033 require an adjustment to the conversion price if the cumulative aggregate of all current and prior dividend increases above $0.025 per share would result in at least a one percent (1%) increase in the conversion price. This threshold has not been reached and no adjustment to the conversion price has been made.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

     We originally registered an indeterminate amount of plan interests to be offered and sold under the Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation 401(k) Plan (the “Plan”) on a Form S-8 registration statement, but did not register any shares of our Class A common stock for purchase under the Plan. On November 29, 2007, we filed a Form S-8 registration statement registering shares of our Class A common stock that may be acquired under the Plan. During fiscal 2007 and prior to the filing of such recent registration statement, approximately 89,911 shares were acquired under the Plan by the Plan administrator through open market purchases at then prevailing market prices. While this may be deemed to be an unregistered offering of securities, we believe that we have consistently provided the participants in the Plan with a prospectus and all of the information required by a prospectus as if the shares had been registered.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

     The following table provides information as of December 31, 2007, about compensation plans under which shares of our common stock may be issued to employees, consultants or non-employee directors of our board of directors upon exercise of options, warrants or rights under all of our existing equity compensation plans. Our existing equity compensation plans include our 2006 Incentive Plan, our 2004, 1998, 1996, 1995 and 1992 Stock Option Plans, in which all of our employees and non-employee directors are eligible to participate, and our 2002 Stock Option Plan, in which our employees are eligible to participate but our non-employee directors and officers may not participate. Restricted stock grants may only be made from our 2006 and 2004 Plans. No further shares are available for issuance under the 2001 Senior Executive Restricted Stock Plan.

Number of securities

remaining available for

Number of Securities

future issuance under

to be issued upon

Weighted-average exercise

equity compensation

exercise of

price of outstanding

plans (excluding

outstanding options,

options, warrants and

securities reflected in

warrants and rights

rights

column a)

Plan Category

Date

(a)

(b)

(c)

Plans approved by stockholders(1)

12/31/2007

7,446,432

$

27.30

3,391,796

Plans not approved by stockholders (2)

12/31/2007

4,220,523

$

29.21

0

Total

11,666,955

$

27.99

3,391,796

     As of February 22, 2008, there were 11,576,585 shares subject to issuance upon exercise of outstanding options or awards under all of our equity compensation plans, at a weighted average exercise price of $27.98, and with a weighted average remaining life of 4.5 years.  In addition, as of February 22, 2008, there were 542,169 unvested shares of restricted stock outstanding under all of our equity compensation plans.  As of February 22, 2008, there were 3,468,322 shares available for future issuance under those plans.

Repurchases of Common Stock

     On August 29, 2007, our Board of Directors approved a stock trading plan to purchase up to $200.0 million in aggregate value of shares of our Class A common stock upon satisfaction of certain conditions. The number of shares to be repurchased and the timing of the repurchases (if any) will depend on factors such as the market price of our Class A common stock, economic and market conditions, and corporate and regulatory requirements. The plan is scheduled to terminate on the earlier of the first anniversary of the plan or at the time when the aggregate purchase limit is reached. As of February 26, 2008, no shares had been repurchased under this plan.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

     The tables within Item 6, Selected Financial Data, have been revised to reflect the restatement.

     The following table sets forth selected consolidated financial data for the year ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, the Transition Period, and the corresponding six-month period in 2004. The data for the year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 and the Transition Period is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes, while the data for the year ended December 31, 2005 and the six-month period ended December 31, 2004 is derived from our unaudited consolidated financial statements. The comparability of the periods presented is impacted by certain product rights and business acquisitions and dispositions. Gross profit does not include amortization of our intangible assets.

		Year				Year				Year				Transition				Six Months
		Ended				Ended				Ended				Period Ended				Ended
		Dec. 31, 2007				Dec. 31, 2006				Dec. 31, 2005				Dec. 31, 2005				Dec. 31, 2004
		(Restated)				(Restated)				(Restated)				(Restated)				(Restated)
										(unaudited)								(unaudited)
		(in thousands, except per share amounts)
Statements of Operations Data:
Net product revenues		$	441,868			$	377,548			$	306,735			$	156,963			$	144,116
Net contract revenues			15,526				15,617				46,002				8,385				34,168
Net revenues			457,394				393,165				352,737				165,348				178,284
Gross profit (a)			401,284				347,059				297,000				139,583				148,859
Operating expenses:
Selling, general and administrative			242,633	(b)			202,457	(d)			146,158	(f)			78,535	(i)			63,305	(k)
Impairment of intangible assets			4,067				52,586				9,171				9,171				—
Research and development			39,428	(c)			161,837	(e)			42,903	(g)			22,367	(j)			45,140	(l)
Depreciation and amortization			24,548				23,048				24,548				12,420				10,222
Total operating expenses			310,676				439,928				222,780				122,493				118,667
Operating income (loss)			90,608				(92,869	)			74,220				17,090				30,192
Other:
Other income, net			—				—				59,801	(h)			59,801	(h)			—
Interest and investment income (expense), net			28,372				20,147				5,804				4,726				(248	)
Income tax (expense) benefit			(48,544	)			24,570				(49,551	)			(29,811	)			(10,377	)
Net income (loss)		$	70,436			$	(48,152	)		$	90,274			$	51,806			$	19,567
Basic net income (loss) per share		$	1.26			$	(0.88	)		$	1.66			$	0.95			$	0.35
Diluted net income (loss) per share		$	1.08			$	(0.88	)		$	1.39	(m)		$	0.79			$	0.32
Cash dividend declared per common share		$	0.12			$	0.12			$	0.12			$	0.06			$	0.06
Basic common shares outstanding			55,988				54,688				54,290				54,323				55,972
Diluted common shares outstanding			71,246				54,688				69,558	(m)			69,772				72,160

     The cash flow data for the year ended December 31, 2005 and the six months ended December 31, 2004, is unaudited.

		December 31,
		2007				2006				2005
		(in thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments		$	794,680			$	554,261	(a)		$	742,532
Working capital (restated)			422,971				323,070				630,951
Long-term investments			17,072				130,290				—
Total assets (restated)			1,213,411				1,122,720				1,196,354
Current portion of long-term debt			283,910				169,155				—
Long-term debt			169,145				283,910				453,065
Stockholders’ equity (restated)			583,301				475,520				481,751

     Previously-reported net cash flows provided by (used in) operating, investing and financing activities were not affected by the restatement adjustments.

																		Six Months
		Year Ended												Transition				Ended
		Dec. 31, 2007				Dec. 31, 2006				Dec. 31, 2005				Period				Dec. 31, 2004
										(unaudited)								(unaudited)
		(in thousands)
Cash Flow Data:
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		$	158,944	(b)		$	(40,963	)(c)		$	232,506	(d)		$	147,990	(d)		$	45,465
Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities			(269,486	)(e)			(216,915	)			187,994				123,665				76,158
Net cash provided by (used in) by financing activities			14,470				14,278				(5,137	)			(2,792	)			(137,447	)

     The following selected consolidated financial data for the three-year period ended June 30, 2005 is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes. The comparability of the years presented is impacted by certain product rights and business acquisitions and dispositions. All business acquisitions were accounted for under the purchase method and accordingly, the results of operations reflect the financial results of each business acquisition from the date of the acquisition. Certain business acquisitions resulted in the write-off of in-process research and development resulting from an independent valuation. Gross profit does not include amortization of the related intangible assets.

		Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
		2005				2004 (f)				2003 (f)
		(Restated)				(Restated)				(Restated)
		(in thousands, except per share amounts)
Statements of Operations Data:
Net product revenues		$	293,888			$	303,056			$	204,706
Net contract revenues			71,785				12,115				5,630
Net revenues			365,673				315,171				210,336
Gross profit (a)			307,548				263,994				169,993
Operating expenses:
Selling, general and administrative			130,927	(b)			114,231				90,103
Research and development			65,676	(c)			16,494	(d)			29,568	(e)
Depreciation and amortization			22,350				16,794				10,125
Total operating expenses			218,953				147,519				129,796
Operating income			88,595				116,475				40,197
Other:
Interest and investment income (expense), net			830				(758	)			(278	)
Loss on early extinguishment of debt			—				(58,660	)			—
Income tax expense			(30,996	)			(21,877	)			(12,440	)
Net income		$	58,429			$	35,180			$	27,479
Basic net income per share		$	1.06			$	0.63			$	0.51
Diluted net income per share		$	0.92			$	0.58			$	0.50
Cash dividend declared per common share		$	0.12			$	0.10			$	0.025
Basic common shares outstanding			55,196				55,618				54,376
Diluted common shares outstanding			70,909				72,481				70,191

		Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2004								Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2003
		As								As
		Previously				As				Previously				As
		Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated
		(in thousands, except per share data)
Net product revenues		$	291,607			$	303,056			$	241,909			$	204,706
Net revenues			303,722				315,171				247,539				210,336
Gross profit			257,116				263,994				209,279				169,993
Selling, general and administrative expense			118,253				114,231				91,648				90,103
Income tax expense			(15,317	)			(21,877	)			(26,404	)			(12,440	)
Net income		$	30,840			$	35,180			$	51,256			$	27,479
Basic net income per share		$	0.55			$	0.63			$	0.94			$	0.51
Diluted net income per share		$	0.52			$	0.58			$	0.84			$	0.50

		June 30,
		2005				2004 (a)				2003 (a)
		(in thousands)
Balance Sheet Data:
Cash, cash equivalents, restricted cash and short-term investments		$	603,568			$	634,040			$	552,663
Working capital (restated)			530,850				604,564				514,785
Total assets (restated)			1,095,087				1,116,396				980,756
Long-term debt			453,065				453,067				400,000
Stockholders’ equity (restated)			416,891				492,892				398,893

		June 30, 2004								June 30, 2003
		As								As
		Previously				As				Previously				As
		Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated
		(in thousands)
Working capital		$	666,743			$	604,564			$	576,781			$	514,785
Total assets			1,078,384				1,116,396				932,841				980,756
Stockholders’ equity			555,303				492,892			$	461,121				398,893

     Previously-reported net cash flows provided by (used in) operating, investing and financing activities were not affected by the restatement adjustments.

		Fiscal Year Ended June 30,
		2005				2004				2003
		(in thousands)
Cash Flow Data:
Net cash provided by operating activities		$	129,981			$	127,964			$	84,667
Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities			140,487				(166,341	)			(113,709	)
Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities			(139,793	)			40,621				(23,343	)

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

     The following Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) summarizes the significant factors affecting our results of operations, liquidity, capital resources and contractual obligations, as well as discusses our critical accounting policies and estimates. You should read the following discussion and analysis together with our consolidated financial statements, including the related notes, which are included in this Form 10-K/A. Certain information contained in the discussion and analysis set forth below and elsewhere in this amended report, including information with respect to our plans and strategy for our business and related financing, includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. See “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this Form 10-K/A for a discussion of important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the results described in or implied by the forward-looking statements in this amended report. Our MD&A is composed of four major sections; Executive Summary, Results of Operations, Liquidity and Capital Resources and Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.

Change in Fiscal Year

     Effective December 31, 2005, we changed our fiscal year end from June 30 to December 31. This change was made to align our fiscal year end with other companies within our industry. This MD&A is intended to cover the audited calendar years January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007, and January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006, which we refer to as “2007” and “2006,” respectively. Comparative financial information to 2006 is provided in this Form 10-K with respect to the calendar year January 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005, which is unaudited and we refer to as “2005.”

Restatement

     We have restated our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and for the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, the six months ended December 31, 2005 and the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The restatement also affects periods prior to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. The impact of the restatement on such prior periods is reflected in an adjustment to retained earnings as of July 1, 2004. In addition, we are concurrently filing Forms 10-Q/A to amend and restate our consolidated financial statements for the quarters ended March 31, 2008 and June 30, 2008. For the purpose of this MD&A, the unaudited calendar year ended December 31, 2005, which is being provided as a comparative to 2006, has also been restated.

     The restatement principally relates to an error in our interpretation and application of SFAS 48, as it applies to a component of our sales return reserve calculations. Management commenced a review and analysis of its accounting for sales return reserves after the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s (the “PCAOB”) inspection of our independent public accounting firm’s, Ernst & Young LLP’s, audit of our 2007 financial statements. Based on the PCAOB inspection, Ernst & Young LLP informed management that the method of accounting for returns of short dated and expired goods in the periods covered by the financial statements was not in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, as the returns for expired product did not qualify for warranty or exchange accounting and, accordingly, under SFAS 48, the Company should have deferred the full sales price of the product for the amount of estimated returns. Management conducted a review of whether the reserve complied with SFAS 48 and whether the amounts involved were material under SAB 99 and SAB 108 for one or more periods. Management determined that there was an error in our interpretation and application of SFAS 48 and that the adjustments necessary to properly state the sales returns reserve were material for the annual, transition, and quarterly periods in fiscal 2003 through 2007 and the first and second quarters of 2008. Accordingly, management recommended to the Audit Committee that a restatement was required.

     Our prior accounting method with respect to sales return reserves accrued estimated future returns of short-dated and expired products, which were expected to be replaced with similar products, at replacement cost, based on our view of the economic impact of returns on our business, rather than deferring the gross sales price. The replacement of short-dated and expired products, which was treated as a warranty or an exchange, was reserved for based on the estimated cost associated with the exchange. In the course of our review and analysis, we determined that, although the exchanged product was similar, it was not of the same quality, strictly due to dating, as we were replacing nearly-expired or expired product with newer, fresher product. Therefore, in accordance with SFAS 48, we have revised our

reserve calculations to defer the gross sales value of the estimated product returns that were expected to be replaced with similar products. The revised reserve calculations were developed based on conditions that existed at the end of each reporting period and in certain cases were revised based on the Company’s actual return experience. Additionally, because of the impact of the changes in the sales returns reserve, we recorded adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals and have also reflected the related income tax effects of these adjustments. In addition, related to the modification of the reserve calculation methodology, the reserve for estimated future returns has been classified within current liabilities rather than as an allowance reducing accounts receivable.

     The restated consolidated financial statements include other adjustments, including adjustments related to conforming our historical accounting policies to current accounting policies, that were previously identified, but not previously recorded, as they were not material, either individually or in the aggregate.. While none of these other adjustments is individually material, they are being made as part of the restatement process. These other adjustments include the reclassification of certain amounts in prior year financial statements to conform to the 2007 financial statement presentation, including the reclassification of donated product to charitable organizations from selling, general and administrative expenses to cost of product revenues.

     Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements discloses the nature of the restatement adjustments and details the impact of the restatement adjustments on our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, and the years ended December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, the six months ended December 31, 2005, the unaudited six months ended December 31, 2004 and the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005. In addition, Note 2 to the restated consolidated financial statements describes the effects of the restatement adjustments to opening retained earnings as of July 1, 2004, which reflects the impact of the restatement on periods prior to the fiscal year ended June 30, 2005.

     The following tables set forth the effects of the restatement on selected line items within our previously reported consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, the transition period from July 1, 2005 to December 31, 2005 (the “Transition Period”) and the fiscal years ended June 30, 2005, 2004 and 2003. The restatement has no impact on our cash flows. The following tables provide only a summary of the effects of the restatement, do not include all line items that have been impacted by the restatement and should be read in conjunction with the restated consolidated financial statements contained in Item 15 of Part IV of this amended report.

		Fiscal				Fiscal				Transition				Fiscal				Fiscal				Fiscal
		Year				Year				Period				Year				Year				Year
		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended
Net revenues (in millions)		12/31/07				12/31/06				12/31/05				6/30/05				6/30/04				6/30/03
As Reported		$	464.7			$	349.2			$	164.0			$	376.9			$	303.7			$	247.5
Adjustment			(7.3	)			44.0				1.3				(11.2	)			11.5				(37.2	)
As Restated		$	457.4			$	393.2			$	165.3			$	365.7			$	315.2			$	210.3

		Fiscal				Fiscal				Transition				Fiscal				Fiscal				Fiscal
Diluted net		Year				Year				Period				Year				Year				Year
income (loss) per		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended
share (in dollars)		12/31/07				12/31/06				12/31/05				6/30/05				6/30/04				6/30/03
As Reported		$	1.14			$	(1.39	)		$	0.76			$	1.01			$	0.52			$	0.84
Adjustment			(0.06	)			0.51				0.03				(0.09	)			0.06				(0.34	)
As Restated		$	1.08			$	(0.88	)		$	0.79			$	0.92			$	0.58			$	0.50

		Fiscal				Fiscal				Transition				Fiscal				Fiscal				Fiscal
		Year				Year				Period				Year				Year				Year
		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended
Working capital (in millions)		12/31/07				12/31/06				12/31/05				6/30/05				6/30/04				6/30/03
As Reported		$	460.1			$	356.9			$	692.5			$	600.1			$	666.7			$	576.8
Adjustment			(37.1	)			(33.8	)			(61.5	)			(69.2	)			(62.1	)			(62.0	)
As Restated		$	423.0			$	323.1			$	631.0			$	530.9			$	604.6			$	514.8

Quarterly Effects of the Restatement

     The following is a summary of the effects of the restatement on our quarterly net revenues, net income (loss) and diluted net income (loss) per common share during the quarterly periods during 2007 and 2006, and on working capital as of the end of each of the quarterly periods during 2007 and 2006. Note 24 to our restated consolidated financial statements sets forth unaudited restated quarterly financial information for each of the eight quarters in the two years ended December 31, 2007. As discussed above, the restatement adjustments primarily related to an error in our interpretation and application of SFAS 48 as it relates to a component of our sales return reserve calculations. The restatement adjustments also include other adjustments, including adjustments related to conforming our historical accounting policies to current accounting policies, that were previously identified, but not previously recorded, as they were deemed not to be material, either individually or in the aggregate.

     Changes to our previously reported quarterly financials primarily reflect the fact that our prior accounting method with respect to sales return reserves accrued estimated future returns of short-dated and expired products at replacement cost, based on our view of the economic impact of returns on our business, rather than deferring the gross sales price. The replacement of short-dated and expired products, which was treated as an exchange, was reserved for based on the estimated cost associated with the exchange. In the course of our review and analysis, we determined that, although the exchanged product was similar, it was not of the same quality, strictly due to dating, as we were replacing nearly-expired product with newer, fresher product. Therefore, in accordance with SFAS 48, we have revised our reserve calculations to defer the gross sales value of the estimated product returns that were expected to be replaced with similar products. In addition, related to the modification of the reserve calculation methodology, the reserve for estimated future returns has been classified within current liabilities rather than as an allowance reducing accounts receivable.

     In 2007, as a result of the restatement adjustments and as discussed in further detail below, net revenues increased for each of the first and second quarters by $3.6 million and $4.7 million, respectively, and decreased for each of the third and fourth quarters by $9.4 million and $6.2 million, respectively. Net income increased for each of the first and second quarters of 2007 by $2.4 million and $3.0 million, respectively, and decreased for each of the third and fourth quarters of 2007 by $5.8 million and $4.3 million, respectively. The quarterly period impacts of the restatement adjustments on net revenues and net income are primarily caused by the net effect of the quarterly changes in our sales return reserve as calculated with our prior accounting method and the quarterly changes in our sales return reserve as calculated with the methodology changes related to the restatement. Working capital decreased for each of the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2007 by $30.1 million, $27.1 million, $32.8 million and $37.1 million, respectively. The decreases in working capital were primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2007 as a result of the restatement. The restatement had no impact on our cash flows for any period.

     In 2006, as a result of the restatement adjustments and as discussed further below, net revenues increased for each of the first, second, third and fourth quarters by $5.5 million, $11.4 million, $11.6 million and $15.3 million, respectively. In conjunction with these increases in net revenues, net income (loss) was positively affected for each quarter of 2006. Our net loss for the first quarter of 2006 decreased by $2.8 million as a result of the restatement and net income increased for the second quarter of 2006 by $9.3 million. The restatement decreased our net loss for the third quarter of 2006 by $4.1 million and increased net income for the fourth quarter of 2006 by $11.4 million. The quarterly period impacts of the restatement adjustments on net revenues and net (loss) income are primarily caused by the net effect of the quarterly changes in our sales return reserve as calculated with our prior accounting method and the quarterly changes in our sales return reserve as calculated with the methodology changes related to the restatement. Working capital decreased for each of the first, second, third and fourth quarters of 2006 by $58.6 million, $49.3 million, $45.2 million and $33.8 million, respectively. The decreases in working capital were primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2006 as a result of the restatement. The restatement had no impact on our cash flows for any period.

     The following tables and subsequent sections discuss the effect of the restatement on quarterly net revenues, net income (loss) and diluted net income (loss) per common share for the quarterly periods during 2007 and 2006, and working capital as of the end of each of the quarterly periods during 2007 and 2006.

		YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2007
		(FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED)
		(In Thousands, except per share data)
		March 31, 2007								June 30, 2007								September 30, 2007								December 31, 2007
		As								As								As								As
		Previously				As				Previously				As				Previously				As				Previously				As
		Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated
Net revenues		$	95,114			$	98,665			$	108,864			$	113,606			$	120,422			$	110,983			$	140,251			$	134,140
Net income		$	9,288			$	11,681			$	15,523			$	18,540			$	22,761			$	16,993			$	27,479			$	23,221
Diluted net income per common share		$	0.15			$	0.19			$	0.24			$	0.28			$	0.34			$	0.26			$	0.41			$	0.35
Working capital at end of quarter		$	639,157			$	609,055			$	570,713			$	543,628			$	734,824			$	701,972			$	460,079			$	422,971

		YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2006
		(FOR THE QUARTERS ENDED)
		(In Thousands, except per share data)
		March 31, 2006								June 30, 2006								September 30, 2006								December 31, 2006
		As								As								As								As
		Previously				As				Previously				As				Previously				As				Previously				As
		Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated				Reported				Restated
Net revenues		$	75,158			$	80,692			$	85,032			$	96,427			$	89,987			$	101,645			$	99,067			$	114,403
Net (loss) income		$	(88,543	)		$	(85,661	)		$	15,519			$	24,838			$	(20,677	)		$	(16,594	)		$	17,852			$	29,265
Diluted net (loss) income per common share		$	(1.63	)		$	(1.58	)		$	0.25			$	0.38			$	(0.38	)		$	(0.30	)		$	0.27			$	0.43
Working capital end of quarter		$	615,225			$	556,606			$	608,759			$	559,459			$	575,430			$	530,213			$	356,874			$	323,070

2007

     The restatement adjustments increased net revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 by $3.6 million, from $95.1 million as previously reported, to $98.7 million. Of this increase, $2.6 million related to the restatement of our sales return reserve and $1.0 million related to other adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals. Net revenues in the first quarter of 2007 increased $18.0 million, or 22.3%, from the first quarter of 2006 primarily as a result of sales of SOLODYN^®, which was approved by the FDA during the second quarter of 2006, and ZIANA^®, which was approved by the FDA during the fourth quarter of 2006. The restatement increased net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 by $2.4 million, from $9.3 million as previously reported, to $11.7 million. The restatement increased diluted net income per common share for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 by $0.04, from $0.15 as previously reported, to $0.19. The restatement decreased working capital as of March 31, 2007 by $30.1 million, from $639.2 million as previously reported, to $609.1 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2007 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

     The restatement adjustments increased net revenues for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 by $4.7 million, from $108.9 million as previously reported, to $113.6 million. Of this increase, $6.3 million related to the restatement of our sales return reserve and $(1.6) million related to other adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals. Net revenues in the second quarter of 2007 increased $17.2 million, or 17.8%, from the second quarter of 2006 primarily as a result of an increase in sales of SOLODYN^®, which was approved by the FDA during the second quarter of 2006, ZIANA^®, which was approved by the FDA during the fourth quarter of 2006, and PERLANE^®, which was approved by the FDA during the second quarter of 2007. The restatement increased net income for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 by $3.0 million, from $15.5 million as previously reported, to $18.5 million. The restatement increased diluted net income per common share for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 by $0.04, from $0.24 as previously reported, to $0.28. The restatement decreased working capital as of June 30, 2007 by $27.1 million, from $570.7 million as previously reported, to $543.6 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2007 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

     The restatement adjustments decreased net revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 by $9.4 million, from $120.4 million as previously reported, to $111.0 million. Of this decrease, $(10.9) million related to the restatement of our sales return reserve and $1.5 million related to other adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals. The $(10.9) million adjustment related to the restatement of our sales return reserve was primarily due to a $(13.3) million change in estimate resulting from refinements to our returns reserve model and to defer revenue for certain sales into the distribution channel that are in excess of projected demand. This change in estimate was a result of us obtaining inventory information from our major wholesaler customers during the quarter ended September 30, 2007. This $(13.3) million change in estimate decreased net income by approximately $8.4 million, and decreased diluted net income per share by $0.12. Net revenues in the third quarter of 2007 increased $9.3 million, or 9.2%, from the third quarter of 2006 primarily as a result of an increase in sales of SOLODYN^®, which was approved by the FDA during the second quarter of 2006, ZIANA^®, which was approved by the FDA during the fourth quarter of 2006, and PERLANE^®, which was approved by the FDA during the second quarter of 2007. The restatement decreased net income for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 by $5.8 million, from $22.8 million as previously reported, to $17.0 million. The restatement decreased diluted net income per common share for the quarter ended September 30, 2007 by $0.08, from $0.34 as previously reported, to $0.26. The restatement decreased working capital as of September 30, 2007 by $32.8 million, from $734.8 million as previously reported, to $702.0 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2007 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

     The restatement adjustments decreased net revenues for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 by $6.2 million, from $140.3 million as previously reported, to $134.1 million. Of this decrease, $(6.8) million related to the restatement of our sales return reserve and $0.6 million related to other adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals. Net revenues in the fourth quarter of 2007 increased $19.7 million, or 17.3%, from the fourth quarter of 2006 primarily as a result of an increase in sales of PERLANE^®, which was approved by the FDA during the second quarter of 2007, TRIAZ^®, VANOS^® and LOPROX^®. The restatement decreased net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 by $4.3 million, from $27.5 million as previously reported, to $23.2 million. The restatement decreased diluted net income per common share for the quarter ended December 31, 2007 by $0.06, from $0.41 as previously reported, to $0.35. The restatement decreased working capital as of December 31, 2007 by $37.1 million, from $460.1 million as previously reported, to $423.0 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2007 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

2006

     The restatement adjustments increased net revenues for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 by $5.5 million, from $75.2 million as previously reported, to $80.7 million. Of this increase, $5.4 million related to the restatement of our sales return reserve and $0.1 million related to other adjustments. The restatement decreased our net loss for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 by $2.8 million, from $(88.5) million as previously reported, to $(85.7) million. The restatement decreased diluted net loss per common share for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 by $0.05, from $(1.63) as previously reported, to $(1.58). The restatement decreased working capital as of March 31, 2006 by $58.6 million, from $615.2 million as previously reported, to $556.6 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2006 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

     The restatement adjustments increased net revenues for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 by $11.4 million, from $85.0 million as previously reported, to $96.4 million. This increase was due to the restatement of our sales return reserve. The restatement increased net income for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 by $9.3 million, from $15.5 million as previously reported, to $24.8 million. The restatement increased diluted net income per common share for the quarter ended June 30, 2006 by $0.13, from $0.25 as previously reported, to $0.38. The restatement decreased working capital as of June 30, 2006 by $49.3 million, from $608.8 million as previously reported, to $559.5 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2006 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

     The restatement adjustments increased net revenues for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 by $11.6 million, from $90.0 million as previously reported, to $101.6 million. This increase was due to the restatement of our sales return reserve. The restatement decreased our net loss for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 by $4.1

million, from $(20.7) million as previously reported, to $(16.6) million. The restatement decreased diluted net loss per common share for the quarter ended September 30, 2006 by $0.08, from $(0.38) as previously reported, to $(0.30). The restatement decreased working capital as of September 30, 2006 by $45.2 million, from $575.4 million as previously reported, to $530.2 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2006 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

     The restatement adjustments increased net revenues for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 by $15.3 million, from $99.1 million as previously reported, to $114.4 million. Of this increase, $14.1 million related to the restatement of our sales return reserve and $1.2 million related to other adjustments to certain managed care, Medicaid and consumer rebate accruals. The restatement increased net income for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 by $11.4 million, from $17.9 million as previously reported, to $29.3 million. The restatement increased diluted net income per common share for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 by $0.16, from $0.27 as previously reported, to $0.43. The restatement decreased working capital as of December 31, 2006 by $33.8 million, from $356.9 million as previously reported, to $323.1 million. The decrease in working capital was primarily due to the increase in our restated sales return reserve in periods prior to 2006 as a result of the restatement adjustments.

     Throughout the following MD&A, all referenced amounts reflect the balances and amounts on a restated basis.

Executive Summary

     We are a leading independent specialty pharmaceutical company focused primarily on helping patients attain a healthy and youthful appearance and self-image through the development and marketing in the U.S. of products for the treatment of dermatological, aesthetic and podiatric conditions. We also market products in Canada for the treatment of dermatological and aesthetic conditions. We offer a broad range of products addressing various conditions or aesthetics improvements, including facial wrinkles, acne, fungal infections, rosacea, hyperpigmentation, photoaging, psoriasis, skin and skin-structure infections, seborrheic dermatitis and cosmesis (improvement in the texture and appearance of skin).

     Our current product lines are divided between the dermatological and non-dermatological fields. The dermatological field represents products for the treatment of acne and acne-related dermatological conditions and non-acne dermatological conditions. The non-dermatological field represents products for the treatment of urea cycle disorder and contract revenue. Our acne and acne-related dermatological product lines include DYNACIN^®, PLEXION^®, SOLODYN^®, TRIAZ^® and ZIANA^®. Our non-acne dermatological product lines include LOPROX^®, OMNICEF^®, PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE^® and VANOS^®. Our non-dermatological product lines include AMMONUL^® and BUPHENYL^®. Our non-dermatological field also includes contract revenues associated with licensing agreements and authorized generic agreements.

Financial Information About Segments

     We operate in one significant business segment: Pharmaceuticals. Our current pharmaceutical franchises are divided between the dermatological and non-dermatological fields. Information on revenues, operating income, identifiable assets and supplemental revenue of our business franchises appears in the consolidated financial statements included in Item 8 hereof.

Key Aspects of Our Business

     We derive a majority of our revenue from our primary products: PERLANE^®, RESTYLANE^®, SOLODYN^®, TRIAZ^®, VANOS^® and ZIANA^®. We believe that sales of our primary products will constitute a significant portion of our sales for the foreseeable future.

     We have built our business by executing a four-part growth strategy: promoting existing brands, developing new products and important product line extensions, entering into strategic collaborations and acquiring complementary products, technologies and businesses. Our core philosophy is to cultivate high integrity relationships of trust and confidence with the foremost dermatologists and podiatrists and the leading plastic surgeons in the United States. We rely on third parties to manufacture our products.

     We estimate customer demand for our prescription products primarily through use of third party syndicated data sources which track prescriptions written by health care providers and dispensed by licensed pharmacies. The data represents extrapolations from information provided only by certain pharmacies and are estimates of historical demand levels. We estimate customer demand for our non-prescription products primarily through internal data that we compile. We observe trends from these data and, coupled with certain proprietary information, prepare demand forecasts that are the basis for our purchase orders for finished and component inventory from our third party manufacturers and suppliers. Our forecasts may fail to accurately anticipate ultimate customer demand for our products. Overestimates of demand may result in excessive inventory production and underestimates may result in inadequate supply of our products in channels of distribution.

     We schedule our inventory purchases to meet anticipated customer demand. As a result, miscalculation of customer demand or relatively small delays in our receipt of manufactured products could result in revenues being deferred or lost. Our operating expenses are based upon anticipated sales levels, and a high percentage of our operating expenses are relatively fixed in the short term.

     We sell our products primarily to major wholesalers and retail pharmacy chains. Approximately 65%-75% of our gross revenues are typically derived from two major drug wholesale concerns. Depending on the customer, we recognize revenue at the time of shipment to the customer, or at the time of receipt by the customer, net of estimated provisions. Consequently, variations in the timing of revenue recognition could cause significant fluctuations in operating results from period to period and may result in unanticipated periodic earnings shortfalls or losses. While we attempt to estimate inventory levels of our products at our major wholesale customers by using written and oral information obtained from certain wholesalers, historical prescription information and historical purchase patterns, this process is inherently imprecise. We rely wholly upon our wholesale and drug chain customers to effect the distribution allocation of substantially all of our products. Based upon historically consistent purchasing patterns of our major wholesale customers, we believe our estimates of trade inventory levels of our products are reasonable. We further believe that inventories of our products among wholesale customers, taken as a whole, are similar to those of other specialty pharmaceutical companies, and that our trade practices, which periodically involve volume discounts and early payment discounts, are typical of the industry.

     We periodically offer promotions to wholesale and chain drugstore customers to encourage dispensing of our prescription products, consistent with prescriptions written by licensed health care providers. Because many of our prescription products compete in multi-source markets, it is important for us to ensure the licensed health care providers’ dispensing instructions are fulfilled with our branded products and are not substituted with a generic product or another therapeutic alternative product which may be contrary to the licensed health care providers’ recommended and prescribed Medicis brand. We believe that a critical component of our brand protection program is maintenance of full product availability at drugstore and wholesale customers. We believe such availability reduces the probability of local and regional product substitutions, shortages and backorders, which could result in lost sales. We expect to continue providing favorable terms to wholesale and retail drug chain customers as may be necessary to ensure the fullest possible distribution of our branded products within the pharmaceutical chain of commerce.

     We cannot control or significantly influence the purchasing patterns of our wholesale and retail drug chain customers. They are highly sophisticated customers who purchase products in a manner consistent with their industry practices and, presumably, based upon their projected demand levels. Purchases by any given customer, during any given period, may be above or below actual prescription volumes of any of our products during the same period, resulting in fluctuations of product inventory in the distribution channel.

     As described in more detail below, the following significant events and transactions occurred during 2007, and affected our results of operations, our cash flows and our financial condition:

	–		FDA approval of PERLANE®;
	–		Write-down of intangible asset related to OMNICEF® due to impairment;
	–		Strategic collaboration with Hyperion; and
	–		Strategic collaboration with Revance.

FDA approval of PERLANE^®

     On May 2, 2007, the FDA approved PERLANE^® for implantation into the deep dermis to superficial subcutis for the correction of moderate to severe facial folds and wrinkles, such as nasolabial folds. In accordance with our agreements with Q-Med, we paid $29.1 million to Q-Med during the three months ended June 30, 2007 as a result of this milestone. The $29.1 million payment is included in intangible assets in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2007. The first commercial sales of PERLANE^® occurred during May 2007.

Write-down of intangible asset related to OMNICEF ^® due to impairment

     During the quarter ended June 30, 2007, an intangible asset related to OMNICEF^® was determined to be impaired based on our analysis of the intangible asset’s carrying value and projected future cash flows. As a result of the impairment analysis, we recorded a write-down of approximately $4.1 million related to this intangible asset. Factors affecting the future cash flows of the OMNICEF^® intangible asset included an early termination letter received during May 2007 from Abbott, which, in accordance with our agreement with Abbott, transitions our co-promotion agreement into a two-year residual period, and competitive pressures in the marketplace, including generic competition. In addition, as a result of the impairment analysis, the remaining amortizable life of the intangible asset related to OMNICEF^® was reduced to two years. The intangible asset related to OMNICEF^® will become fully amortized by June 30, 2009. The net impact on amortization expense as a result of the write-down of the carrying value of the intangible asset and the reduction of its amortizable life is a decrease in quarterly amortization expense of approximately $126,000.

Strategic Collaboration with Hyperion

     On August 28, 2007, we, through our wholly-owned subsidiary Ucyclyd Pharma, Inc. (“Ucyclyd”), announced a strategic collaboration with Hyperion Therapeutics, Inc. (“Hyperion”) whereby Hyperion will be responsible for the ongoing research and development of a compound referred to as GT4P for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorder, Hepatic Encephalopathies and other indications, and additional indications for AMMONUL^®. Under terms of the Collaboration Agreement between Ucyclyd and Hyperion, dated as of August 23, 2007, Hyperion made an initial non-refundable payment of $10.0 million to Ucyclyd for the rights and licenses granted to Hyperion in the agreement. In accordance with EITF No. 00-21, “Accounting for Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables,” and SAB 104, “Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements,” this $10.0 million payment was recorded as deferred revenue and is being recognized on a straight-line basis over a period of four years. In addition, if certain specified conditions are satisfied relating to the Ucyclyd development projects, then Hyperion will have certain purchase rights with respect to the Ucyclyd development products as well as Ucyclyd’s existing on-market products, AMMONUL^® and BUPHENYL^®, and will pay Ucyclyd royalties and regulatory and sales milestone payments in connection with certain licenses that would be granted to Hyperion upon exercise of the purchase rights.

     Additionally, Hyperion will be funding all research and development costs for the Ucyclyd research projects, and will undertake certain sales and marketing efforts for Ucyclyd’s existing on-market products. Hyperion will receive a commission from Ucyclyd equal to a certain percentage of any increase in unit sales. Ucyclyd will continue to record product sales for the existing on-market Ucyclyd products until such time as Hyperion exercises its purchase rights.

     Professional fees of approximately $2.2 million were incurred related to the completion of the agreement with Hyperion. These costs were recognized as general and administrative expenses during the three months ended September 30, 2007.

Strategic Collaboration with Revance

     On December 11, 2007, we announced a strategic collaboration with Revance Therapeutics, Inc. (“Revance”), a privately-held, venture-backed development-stage company, whereby we made an equity investment in Revance and purchased an option to acquire Revance or to license exclusively in North America Revance’s novel topical botulinum toxin type A product currently under clinical development. The consideration to be paid to Revance upon our exercise of the option will be at an amount that will approximate the then fair value of Revance or the license of the product under development, as determined by an independent appraisal. The option period will extend through the end of Phase 2 testing in the United States. In consideration for our $20.0 million payment, we received preferred stock representing an approximate 13.7 percent ownership in Revance, or approximately 11.7 percent on a fully diluted basis and the option to acquire Revance or to license the product under development. The $20.0 million is expected to be used by Revance primarily for the development of the new product. $12.0 million of the $20.0 million payment represents the fair value of the investment in Revance at the time of the investment and is included in other long-term assets in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2007. The remaining $8.0 million, which is non-refundable and is expected to be utilized in the development of the new product, represents the residual value of the option to acquire Revance or to license the product under development and is included in research and development expense for the three months ended December 31, 2007.

     Additionally, we have committed to make further equity investments in Revance of up to $5.0 million under certain terms and prior to the exercise of the option to acquire Revance or to license exclusively Revance’s topical botulinum toxin type A product in North America.

     Prior to the exercise of the option, Revance will remain primarily responsible for the worldwide development of Revance’s topical botulinum toxin type A product in consultation with us in North America. We will assume primary responsibility for the development of the product should consummation of either a merger or a license for topically delivered botulinum toxin type A in North America be completed under the terms of the option. Revance will have sole responsibility for manufacturing the development product and manufacturing the product during commercialization worldwide. Our right to exercise the option is triggered upon Revance’s successful completion of certain regulatory milestones through the end of Phase 2 testing in the United States. A license would contain a payment upon exercise of the license option, milestone payments related to clinical, regulatory and commercial achievements, and royalties based on sales defined in the license. If we elect to exercise the option, the financial terms for the acquisition or license will be determined through an independent valuation in accordance with specified methodologies.

     Professional fees of approximately $1.3 million were incurred related to the completion of the agreement with Revance. These costs were recognized as general and administrative expenses during the three months ended December 31, 2007.

     On a going-forward basis, in the absence of quantitative valuation metrics, such as a recent financing round, we will estimate the impairment and/or the net realizable value of the investment, based on a hypothetical liquidation at book value approach as of the reporting date. The amount that will be expensed periodically is uncertain due to the timing of expenditures for research and development, and the charges will not be immediately, if ever, deductible for income tax purposes and will increase our effective tax rate. Further equity investments, if any, will also be subject to the same accounting treatment as our original equity investment.

Results of Operations

     The following table sets forth certain data as a percentage of net revenues for the periods indicated.

										(Unaudited)
		Year				Year				Year
		Ended				Ended				Ended
		Dec. 31,				Dec. 31,				Dec. 31,
		2007(a)				2006(b)				2005(c)
		(Restated)				(Restated)				(Restated)
Net revenues			100.0	%			100.0	%			100.0	%
Gross profit (d)			87.7				88.3				84.2
Operating expenses			67.9				111.9				63.2
Operating income (loss)			19.8				(23.6	)			21.0
Other income, net			—				—				17.0
Interest and investment income (expense), net			6.2				5.1				1.6
Income (loss) before income tax (expense) benefit			26.0				(18.5	)			39.6
Income tax (expense) benefit			(10.6	)			6.3				(14.0	)
Net income (loss)			15.4	%			(12.2	)%			25.6	%