Generate an explanation for the given claim using the provided supporting material from the paragraph. Please consider the following points while generating an output. 1) The claim will always have supporting proof in the paragraph, and the paragraph will have a clear point of view supporting the claim. 2) There can be instances where direct correlation to the claim is not available. Make use of the sentences in the paragraph to provide a corresponding output supporting the claim. 3) The explanation should be at least one and at most twelve sentences long.

Example input: Paragraph: "Although the story didn't cite the cost of appendectomy emergency or urgent surgery and we wish it had, we nonetheless will give it a satisfactory score because it at least cited what the editorial writer wrote, ""A secondary benefit is the savings to the hospital generated by minimizing staff and anesthesiologist presence late in the evening and during the wee hours of the morning."" As with our harms score above, although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Although the story didn't give absolute numbers, in this case we think it was sufficient for it to report that ""The scientists found no significant difference among the groups in the patients' condition 30 days after surgery or in the length of their operation or hospital stay."" Despite running less than 300 words, this story did an adequate job in explaining the quality of the evidence, including pointing out limitations. No disease-mongering here. The story meets the bare minimum requirement for this criterion in that it at least cited what an editorial stated. The focus of the story was on a study comparing emergency appendectomy with surgery done up to 12 hours later or beyond. This is the whole focus of the story and one we applaud when it begins: ""Appendectomy is the most common emergency surgery in the world, but it doesn't have to be."" There were no claims made about the novelty of this research, and we may have wished for a bit more context on this. Nonetheless, the potential for guiding future care decisions was made clear. Not applicable. Given that the story only pulled excerpts from the journal article and the accompanying editorial, and didn't include any fresh quotes from interviews, we can't be sure of the extent to which it may have been influenced by a news release.". Claim: Some appendicitis cases may not require 'emergency' surgery
Example output: We really don't understand why only a handful of mainstream news organizations reported this story. (At least in what we found.) The most common emergency surgery in the world. Rushing to emergency surgery may not carry any benefit. Waiting a few hours may be safer and less expensive. Why is that not a story? We applaud USA Today for finding time and space and clearly it didn't need to free up much space to do a good job telling the story. The story explains that as many as 300,0 appendectomies are done each year in the US. That figure alone explains why this is an important study to report.
Example explanation: The output is an analysis of the claim while considering the paragraph as a reference. The output highlights the key features presented in the paragraph and explains the claim accordingly.
Q: Paragraph: The settlement, the largest by any company related to the U.S. opioid epidemic, resolved long-running probes by the U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission into the companies' marketing and sales of Suboxone Film. The deal came after Indivior in April was indicted and accused of deceiving doctors and healthcare benefit programs into believing Suboxone Film, itself a form of opioid, was safer and less susceptible to abuse than similar drugs. The indictment said Indivior also used an internet and telephone program touted as a resource for opioid-addicted patients to connect them to doctors it knew were prescribing Suboxone and other opioids at high rates and in suspect circumstances. The Justice Department said the scheme began before Indivior spun out of Reckitt in 2014 and resulted in thousands of opioid-addicted patients using the drug. Opioids, including prescription painkillers and heroin, played a role in a record 47,600 U.S. overdose deaths in 2017, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said. Reckitt was not indicted like Indivior, but the department last year joined several whistleblower lawsuits alleging the British company improperly marketed the drug. As part of Thursday's settlement, Reckitt entered into a non-prosecution agreement and agreed to pay nearly $1.35 billion to resolve the Justice Department's criminal and civil claims. It will also pay $50 million to resolve FTC claims that it engaged in anticompetitive activities aimed at impeding competition from generic versions of Suboxone. Reckitt said in a statement that it "acted lawfully at all times and expressly denies all allegations that it engaged in any wrongful conduct." But it said its board had decided the settlement was in the company's best interests. Slough, England-based Indivior has pleaded not guilty to conspiracy and fraud charges. In a statement, it acknowledged Reckitt's settlement but said it had no new information on the case. Its trial in federal court in Abingdon, Virginia is set for May. (GRAPHIC - Reckitt gains in value after Indivior spin-off: tmsnrt.rs/2NPlAJJ) Shares in Reckitt, whose products range from Mucinex cold medicine and Lysol cleaners, closed up 2.5%. While the settlement is significantly higher than the $400 million that the consumer goods group had set aside to cover the cost of the investigations, analysts said it could allow the company's new chief executive to focus on a turnaround plan. In an effort to regain investor confidence after setbacks including a safety scandal in South Korea, a failed product launch and a cyber attack, Reckitt's outgoing boss Rakesh Kapoor launched a plan to split the group into two business units one for health and one for hygiene and home products. Investors had feared the U.S. probes could hinder the transformation. Analysts at JP Morgan wrote in a note that settlement "clarifies the legal environment for RB and should allow the new management to focus on the RB 2.0 transformation." While welcoming the settlement, AJ Bell investment director Russ Mould said the cost could limit incoming CEO Laxman Narasimhan's ability to undertake much-needed investment in Reckitt's brands. "The danger is that Narasimhan will be operating with one hand tied behind his back," he said. The company said it would increase its provision related to the investigations to $1.5 billion to cover both the cost of the settlement and "any remaining litigation exposures." It said the deal would be funded through existing borrowing facilities and cash generation. Separately, Indivior also raised its full-year profit and revenue guidance after Suboxone lost market share at a slower pace than expected. Its shares closed 6.73% higher. Claim: Reckitt to pay $1.4 billion to end U.S. opioid addiction treatment probes.
A:
Reckitt Benckiser has agreed to pay up to $1.4 billion to resolve U.S. claims that its former pharmaceuticals business Indivior before it was spun out of the company carried out an illegal scheme to boost sales of an opioid addiction treatment.