return in 1976. The company discontinued operating as a contract manufacturing organization in 1980 and instead chose to market their products under their own "Mylan-labeled" brand. 1980s With the passage of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984, the company and other small generic companies gained value; in the eighteen months following passage of the law the company's earnings grew 166% to $12.5 million and its stock value rose 800%. Dyazide & Maxzide In the 1980s one of the most prescribed drugs in the US was Dyazide, a diuretic that was a combination drug containing triamterene and hydrochlorothiazide; it had been on the market since 1965 and its patents had expired in 1980. Complications arose with the introductions of generics versions, because the formulation of Dyazide resulted in variable batches that made it impossible for generic manufacturers to show that their versions were bioequivalent. Some generic companies committed fraud trying to bring a generic version of Dyazide. Bolar Pharmaceutical had the first generic version approved in 1987, but it turned out that Bolar had fraudulently substituted Dyazide for its own version to conduct studies that were submitted to the FDA. By 1989 the FDA rescinded its approval based on its suspicions and filed criminal charges against Bolar, to which Bolar eventually pled guilty in 1991. The company chose to develop a new version of a triamterene/hydrochlorothiazide combination drug instead of going the generic route; it developed a different, more stable formulation and used different dosages of each active ingredient (50 mg hydrochlorothiazide and 75 mg triamterene, compared with Dyazide's 25 mg hydrochlorothiazide and 50 mg triamterene). This drug had to get approval as a new drug, as opposed to a generic. Their product was called Maxzide and was approved in 1984. The higher dose allowed once per day dosing, which the company and its marketing partner, Lederle, believed would help it compete against Dyazide, which had $210M in sales in 1983. However, the company's patents on the drug were declared invalid in court, and its marketing exclusivity expired in 1987, prompting a rush of generic competition. The company had concerns about the practices of its competitors and the FDA in general, and also with regard to companies seeking to bring generic versions of Maxzide. The company hired private investigators to examine its competitors' practices, and when it found evidence of corruption, it submitted it to the House Oversight and Investigations Committee, which