(1) In the old system individual CMC reviewers review queue contained a mixture of original ANDAs and Supplements and of some Annual reports. Expedited reviews were placed at the "head of the queue" meaning that the reviewer pick up the expedited application (or supplement) as soon as they were finished with the current review job.

Assuming it is "received for filing" it is then placed into the appropriate reviewer's queue as the next job to be done.  In real timelines that might mean getting an acceptance review within 2 or 3 months instead of 8 or 9 months and getting a first review within say 9 to 12 months (total time since filing) instead of 15 to, well I have one that is now 42 months old and is still waiting for a first review, so who knows?

(2) How all of this will work under the new OPQ and multiple project managers, I have no idea. The last we heard, CMC reviewers were organized into groups that are assigned all drugs of a particular therapeutic category like Cardiovascular drugs or Analgesics. 

(3) Specifically for first-to-file para IVs that get sued, the law requires that they get approval (or tentative approval if they also have a para III certification) within 30 months of filing.  If they don't, they risk losing their 180 days of exclusivity.  GPhA claims that "at least 19 first-to-file applicants have forfeited 180 day exclusivity since October 1, 2012".  I know of forfeitures prior to that due to slow OGD review, like taking 26 months to do a first review and then asking for new batches and biostudies.Note that FDASIA extended the 30 months to 40 months to help avoid these forfeitures, but they are obviously still a major and inexcusable problem.

识林-Pepper