COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York and New York State Attorney General investigation

Settlement Agreements with the United States of America, qui tam relator and thirty-five states

Effective January 8, 2014, the Company entered into the Federal Settlement Agreement with the DOJ and David M. Kester (the “Relator”). The Federal Settlement Agreement memorialized the federal and private component of the Company's previously disclosed agreement in principle, first announced on December 16, 2013, to settle all civil claims under the False Claims Act and related statutes and all common law claims (collectively, the “Claims”) that could have been brought by the DOJ and Relator in the Civil Action (as defined below) relating to the distribution of the Medication by the Company's legacy specialty pharmacy division that was divested in May 2012 (the “Legacy Division”). Effective February 11, 2014, the Company entered into the State Settlement Agreements with the Settling States. The State Settlement Agreements memorialized the state component of the Company's previously disclosed agreement in principle, first announced on December 16, 2013, to settle the Claims that could have been brought by the Settling States that arose out of the Legacy Division's distribution of the Medication.

As previously disclosed in September 2013, the Company has cooperated with the United States Attorney’s Office (the “USAO”) for the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) and the New York State Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit (the "NYMFCU" and together with the USAO, the "Government") by producing documents and information regarding the Legacy Division’s distribution of the Medication. As reflected in the Federal Settlement Agreement, the Company was informed by the Government for the first time in September 2013 that the Government was contemplating claims against the Company relating to the Legacy Division’s distribution of the Medication. Thereafter, and in connection with confidential settlement discussions with the Government, the Company was first informed confidentially that the Company and others were named as defendants in a sealed qui tam lawsuit (a whistleblower action brought by a private citizen, the Relator, on behalf of the government) filed in the SDNY by the Relator, in a case titled United States of America, et al., ex. Rel Kester v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, et al, Civil Action No. 11-CIV-8196 (the “Civil Action”) regarding the Legacy Division’s distribution of the Medication and alleging violations of the False Claims Act and related statutes. Until January 8, 2014, the Company was prohibited from publicly disclosing any information related to the existence of the Civil Action. On January 8, 2014, the Civil Action was unsealed and made public on order of the court.

With the execution of the Settlement Agreements, the Company expects the Civil Action to be fully resolved, and the Company expects to be fully resolved the federal and state claims that were or could have been raised in the Civil Action. The Company anticipates that all state claims that have been or could be brought against it in the Civil Action will be dismissed with prejudice. The State Settlement Agreements expressly recognize and affirmatively provide that, by entering into the State Settlement Agreements, the Company has not made any admission of liability and the Company expressly denies the allegations in the Civil Action.

As a part of the State Settlement Agreements, the Company has also resolved any and all claims that the Settling States or their representatives, including the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units (the “NAMFCU”) (which represented the offices of the Attorneys General of the Settling States), could bring for attorney’s fees, investigative fees and/or administrative costs related to the Civil Action. Except for potential claims for certain investigative/administrative costs and attorney’s fees related to the Civil Action incurred by the DOJ, Relator and the NAMFCU that the Company expects not to exceed $0.75 million in the aggregate, the Company does not anticipate any further claims relating to the matters involved in the Settlement Agreements. The Settlement Agreements do not, however, preclude the OIG or any state from taking any administrative actions.

Under the Settlement Agreements, the Company will pay an aggregate of $15.0 million, plus interest (at an annual rate of 3.25%) in three approximately annual payments from January 2014 through January 2016. The Settlement Agreements represented a compromise to avoid the costs, distraction and uncertainty of protracted litigation. The Settlement Agreements do not include any admission of wrongdoing, illegal activity, or liability by the Company or its employees, directors, officers or agents. The lenders under the Company's Senior Credit Facilities provided their consent to the Settlement Agreements. In connection with this consent, the Company paid the lenders an amount of $0.5 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2013, the Company included in its results of discontinued operations an accrual of $15.0 million in connection with the government’s investigation regarding certain operations of the Legacy Division.

Securities Class Action Litigation in the Southern District of New York

On September 30, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks damages and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On November 15, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its directors and officers and certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013 underwritten public offering of its common stock, on behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8, 2011 and September 23, 2013, inclusive. The lawsuit seeks damages and other relief for alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The two class action lawsuits were consolidated and a lead plaintiff was appointed on December 19, 2013. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on February 19, 2014 against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, certain underwriters in the Company's April 2013 underwritten public offering of its common stock, and a certain stockholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company's securities between November 9, 2012 and November 6, 2013, inclusive, and persons and entities who purchased the Company's securities pursuant or traceable to two underwritten public offerings of the Company’s common stock conducted in April 2013, and August 2013. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related the Legacy Division’s distribution of the Medication as well as the Company’s PBM Services segment. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. Pursuant to the parties' scheduling order, briefing on the motion to dismiss will be complete in July 2014. The Company believes all of the claims in these class action lawsuits are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. However, there is no assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of these actions. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed. Moreover, the Company is not able to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

Professional Home Care Services Litigation

On March 31, 2009, Professional Home Care Services, Inc., or PHCS, which is one of the subsidiaries we acquired through our acquisition of CHS, was sued by Alexander Infusion, LLC, a New York-based home infusion company, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. The complaint alleges principally breach of contract arising in connection with PHCS's failure to consummate an acquisition of Alexander Infusion after failing to satisfy the conditions to PHCS's obligation to close. Alexander Infusion has sued for $3.5 million in damages. We believe Alexander Infusion's claims to be without merit and intend to continue to defend against the allegations vigorously. Furthermore, under the Merger Agreement, subject to certain limits, the former CHS Stockholders agreed to indemnify us in connection with any losses arising from claims made in respect of the acquisition agreement entered into between PHCS and Alexander Infusion.

Legal Settlements

Following responses to government subpoenas and discussions with the government, in May 2011 we were advised of a qui tam lawsuit filed under seal in federal court in Minnesota in 2006 and naming us as defendant. The complaint alleged violations of healthcare statutes and regulations by the Company and predecessor companies dating back to 2000. The Company entered into a final settlement under which we paid the states $0.6 million and the federal government $4.4 million resolving all issues alleged in the complaint and the government's investigation in exchange for a release and dismissal of the claims. A related qui tam relator's employment termination claim and her lawyer's statutory legal fee claim were also resolved. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded a legal settlement expense of $4.8 million related to the settlement. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded additional legal settlement expense of $0.8 million to account for the final settlement amount. The legal settlement expenses were included in income from discontinued operations, net of income taxes in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations.

Government Regulation

Various federal and state laws and regulations affecting the healthcare industry do or may impact the Company's current and planned operations, including, without limitation, federal and state laws prohibiting kickbacks in government health programs, federal and state antitrust and drug distribution laws, and a wide variety of consumer protection, insurance and other state laws and regulations. While management believes the Company is in substantial compliance with all existing laws and regulations material to the operation of its business, such laws and regulations are subject to rapid change and often are uncertain in their application. As controversies continue to arise in the healthcare industry (for example, the efforts of Plan Sponsors and pharmacy benefit managers to limit formularies, alter drug choice and establish limited networks of participating pharmacies), federal and state regulation and enforcement priorities in this area can be expected to increase, the impact of which cannot be predicted.

From time to time, the Company responds to subpoenas and requests for information from governmental agencies. The Company cannot predict with certainty what the outcome of any of the foregoing might be. While the Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all laws, rules and regulations that affects its business and operations, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to scrutiny or challenge under one or more existing laws or that any such challenge would not be successful. Any such challenge, whether or not successful, could have a material effect upon the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements. A violation of the Federal anti-kickback statute, for example, may result in substantial criminal penalties, as well as suspension or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Moreover, the costs and expenses associated with defending these actions, even where successful, can be significant. Further, there can be no assurance the Company will be able to obtain or maintain any of the regulatory approvals that may be required to operate its business, and the failure to do so could have a material effect on the Company's Consolidated Financial Statements.

Leases

The Company leases its facilities and certain equipment under various operating leases with third parties. The majority of these leases contain escalation clauses that increase base rent payments based upon either the Consumer Price Index or an agreed upon schedule.

In addition, the Company utilizes capital leases agreements with third parties to obtain certain assets such as telecommunications equipment and vehicles. Interest rates on capital leases are both fixed and variable and range from 3% to 7%.

As of December 31, 2013, future minimum lease payments under operating and capital leases were as follows (in thousands):



	Operating Leases		Capital Leases		Total
2014	$	9,622	$	333	$	9,955
2015	7,771		438		8,209
2016	6,202		201		6,403
2017	5,038		39		5,077
2018	3,242		1		3,243
2019 and thereafter	3,177		—		3,177
Total	$	35,052	$	1,012	$	36,064

Rent expense for leased facilities and equipment was approximately $7.9 million, $6.2 million and $6.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2013, the Company had commitments to purchase prescription drugs from drug manufacturers of approximately $37.3 million in 2014. These purchase commitments are made at levels expected to be used in the normal course of business.