COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

Shareholder Class Action Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery

On April 9, 2015, two separate putative class action lawsuits were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Delaware Court”) by purported stockholders Lawrence Cline and Roger Rubin (“Plaintiffs”), respectively, in connection with the Purchase Agreement with the PIPE Investors, against the Company, Directors of the Company and the PIPE Investors. Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, the Company issued and sold to the PIPE Investors in a private placement (as defined above, the “PIPE Transaction”) an aggregate of (a) 625,000 shares of Series A Preferred Stock, (b) 1,800,000 PIPE Class A Warrants, and (c) 1,800,000 PIPE Class B Warrants, as further described below.

As disclosed in the Company’s definitive proxy materials relating to the 2015 Annual Meeting, the Company sought Stockholder Approval to remove certain conversion and voting restrictions affecting the Series A Preferred Stock and exercise restrictions affecting the PIPE Warrants (as defined above, the “Stockholder Approval”). Until Stockholder Approval was obtained, the terms of the Series A Preferred Stock and the PIPE Warrants contained caps on the conversion of the Series A Preferred Stock into Common Stock and on the exercise of the PIPE Warrants to purchase Common Stock (the “Conversion Caps”) and a cap on voting power (the “Voting Cap” and, together with the Conversion Caps, the “Caps”) that prevented the issuance of Common Stock if a single holder would own or vote more than 19.99% of the Common Stock or have more than 19.99% of the voting power. If the Company did not receive Stockholder Approval before September 30, 2015, then the Caps would have remained in effect and the dividend rates on the Series A Preferred Stock would have increased (the “Dividend Rate Adjustment”).

The Plaintiffs asserted, among other things, that the Dividend Rate Adjustment was invalid, that the Board had breached their fiduciary duties and that the stockholder vote on the Stockholder Approval scheduled for the 2015 Annual Meeting was coercive and based on inadequate disclosure. The Plaintiffs’ complaint sought a preliminary and permanent injunction, enjoining the vote on Stockholder Approval at the 2015 Annual Meeting, additional disclosures, certain declaratory relief, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. On April 17, 2015, the two separate class action lawsuits were consolidated by order of the Delaware Court as In re BioScrip, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consol. C.A. 10893-VCG (the “Delaware Action”).

On April 30, 2015, the Company entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “Memorandum of Understanding”) to settle the Delaware Action. The parties entered into a stipulation of settlement on May 11, 2015 (the “Stipulation of Settlement”). In consideration for the full settlement and release of the Delaware Action (the “Settlement”), the Stipulation of Settlement provided for, among other things, agreement that if Stockholder Approval was obtained, causing the Caps to be removed and the Dividend Rate Adjustment to never go into effect, the Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice, subject to court approval. The Stipulation of Settlement also provided for an award of no more than $750,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to Plaintiffs’ counsel, subject to court approval.

Stockholder Approval was obtained at the 2015 Annual Meeting on May 11, 2015, and, therefore, subject to court approval of the Settlement, the Delaware Action will be dismissed with prejudice by the Delaware Court in accordance with the terms of the Stipulation of Settlement. The Delaware Court held a hearing on July 29, 2015, to consider the fairness of the Settlement and award of Plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. The order approving the Settlement and award of $750,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses to Plaintiff’s counsel was issued on July 29, 2015.

The Company carries insurance coverage in such amounts as we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, which will cover a certain percentage of the attorneys’ fees award. We believe the action may implicate one or more indemnification agreements between the Company and certain defendants, for which there may be no insurance coverage. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Derivative Lawsuit in Delaware Court of Chancery

On May 7, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by the Park Employees’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (the “Delaware Complaint”). The Delaware Complaint names as defendants certain current and former directors of the Company, consisting of Richard M. Smith, Myron Holubiak, Charlotte Collins, Samuel Frieder, David Huber, Richard Robbins, Stuart Samuels and Gordon Woodward (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), certain current and former officers of the Company, consisting of Kimberlee Seah, Hai Tran and Patricia Bogusz (collectively the “Officer Defendants”), Kohlberg & Co., L.L.C., Kohlberg Management V, L.L.C., Kohlberg Investors V, L.P., Kohlberg Partners V, L.P., Kohlberg TE Investors V, L.P., KOCO Investors V, L.P. and Jefferies LLC. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant in the Delaware Complaint. The Delaware Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery as Park Employees and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Richard M. Smith, Myron Z. Holubiak, Charlotte W. Collins, Samuel P. Frieder, David R. Huber, Richard L. Robbins, Stuart A. Samuels, Gordon H. Woodward, Kimberlee C. Seah, Hai V. Tran, Patricia Bogusz, Kohlberg & Co., L.L.C., Kohlberg Management V, L.L.C., Kohlberg Investors V, L.P., Kohlberg Partners V, L.P., Kohlberg TE Investors V, L.P., KOCO Investors V, L.P., Jefferies LLC and BioScrip, Inc., C.A. No. 11000-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., May 7, 2015).

The Delaware Complaint alleges generally that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Company’s public disclosures, oversight of Company operations, secondary stock offerings and stock sales. The Delaware Complaint also contends that certain defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The damages sought are not quantified but include, among other things, claims for money damages, restitution, disgorgement, equitable relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and interest. The Delaware Complaint incorporates the same factual allegations from In re BioScrip, Inc., Securities Litigation (described below). On June 16, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the case. Briefing for the motion to dismiss is currently scheduled to be completed by November 30, 2015.

The Company, Director Defendants and the Officer Defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing in this lawsuit. The Company and such persons believe all of the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. However, there is no assurance that the defense will be successful or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of this action. Certain of the defendants have sought indemnification from the Company pursuant to certain indemnification agreements, for which there may be no insurance coverage. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed. Moreover, we are unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Discontinued Operations Contingency - Prior State Regulatory Matter

The Company has accrued an estimate of a potential loss as of June 30, 2015 in connection with a pending regulatory matter related to certain discontinued operations of the Company (see Note 6 - Discontinued Operations). The accrual recorded represents the Company’s best estimate of the exposure.

United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and New York State Attorney General Investigation

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 represented the federal and private component of the Company’s agreement 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 qui tam lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) by the Relator relating to the distribution of the Medication by the Company’s legacy specialty pharmacy division (the “Legacy Division”) that was divested in May 2012 (the “Civil Action”). 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. Effective February 11, 2014, the Company entered into the State Settlement Agreements with the Settling States. The State Settlement Agreements represented the state component of the Company’s agreement 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.

With the execution of the Federal Settlement Agreement and the State Settlement Agreements (collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”), the Company expects the Civil Action to be fully resolved, and also expects to be fully resolved the federal and state claims that were or could have been raised in the Civil Action. All federal claims and all state claims by the Settling States that have been or could be brought against it in the Civil Action have been 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. The Company has also separately resolved any and all claims for certain investigative/administrative costs and attorney’s fees related to the Civil Action incurred by the DOJ, Relator and the NAMFCU for approximately $1.1 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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the Inspector General 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.

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. As of June 30, 2015, the Company has paid $9.1 million, including interest, related to the Settlement Agreements and $0.7 million of fees to the Relator.

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.

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.

On December 19, 2013, the United States District Court for the SDNY entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits as In re BioScrip, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-6922 (AJN) and appointing a lead plaintiff. 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 to 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. All defendants in the case moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on April 28, 2014. On March 31, 2015, the Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 14, 2015, a motion to reconsider a portion of the Court’s denial of the motions to dismiss was filed on behalf of all remaining defendants. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion on April 28, 2015. On June 5, 2015, the Court denied the defendants’ motion to reconsider. The parties have agreed to a mediation of all pending claims, which is currently scheduled to take place in September 2015.

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. Certain of the defendants have sought indemnification from the Company, pursuant to certain indemnification agreements, for which there may be no insurance coverage. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, we believe that the final resolution of this action is not likely to have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Professional Home Care Services Litigation

On March 31, 2009, Professional Home Care Services, Inc. (“PHCS”), a subsidiary of the Company, was sued by Alexander Infusion, LLC, a New York-based home infusion company (“Alexander Infusion”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York (the “Lawsuit”). The complaint alleged 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. On April 4, 2014, PHCS and the Company entered into a settlement agreement with Alexander Infusion and its affiliate Avantiscripts, LLC (collectively the “Alexander Parties”) to resolve all outstanding claims arising out of the Lawsuit in exchange for payment by PHCS to the Alexander Parties in the amount of $325,000,and the Lawsuit was dismissed on April 8, 2014. The Company did not pay any cash under the settlement agreement. Rather, the settlement amount of $325,000 was offset against an amount of $325,000 on accounts receivable due to the Company from the Alexander Parties. In addition, under the merger agreement dated as of January 24, 2010, by and among the Company, CHS and the former CHS stockholders, the former CHS stockholders agreed to indemnify the Company, subject to certain limits, in connection with any losses arising from claims made in respect of the acquisition agreement entered into between PHCS and Alexander Infusion.

PBM Services Payment Delay

The Company has historically engaged a third party processor to process PBM Services cash card claims. The third party processor has ceased paying amounts due to the Company. As of June 30, 2015, the total amount owed to the Company is approximately $6.8 million. The Company has initiated arbitration to collect approximately $6.8 million due from the third party processor. The arbitration process is expected to take several more months. As of June 30, 2015, no reserve has been provided for the amounts due to the Company as we believe the amounts owed will be paid in full, however, there are uncertainties around any arbitration process.

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 often uncertain in their application to our business practices as they evolve and are subject to rapid change. As controversies continue to arise in the healthcare industry, 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 investigatory subpoenas and requests for information from governmental agencies and private parties. 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 vehicles. Interest rates on capital leases are both fixed and variable and range from 3% to 7%.

As of June 30, 2015, future minimum lease payments under operating and capital leases are as follows (in thousands):



	Operating Leases		Capital Leases		Total
2015 (six months)	$	4,560	$	181	$	4,741
2016	7,921		122		8,043
2017	6,773		62		6,835
2018	4,713		11		4,724
2019	2,731		—		2,731
2020 and thereafter	2,357		—		2,357
Total	$	29,055	$	376	$	29,431

Rent expense for leased facilities and equipment was approximately $1.8 million and $2.0 million three months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively, and $3.7 million and $3.9 million for the six months ended June 30, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Purchase Commitments

As of June 30, 2015, the Company had commitments to purchase prescription drugs from drug manufacturers of approximately $23.3 million during the remainder of 2015. These purchase commitments are made at levels expected to be used in the normal course of business.