RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC.
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No ý

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes o No ý

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý No o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes ý No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of "large accelerated filer," "accelerated filer" and "smaller reporting company" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes o No ý

None of the voting or non-voting common equity of the registrant is held by a non-affiliate of the registrant. There is no publicly traded market for any class of common equity of the registrant.

As of March 1, 2013, there were 1,025 shares of the registrant's common stock, $0.01 par value per share, issued and outstanding, all of which are 100% owned by Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC.

Some of the information set forth in this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. We may make other written and oral communications from time to time that contain such statements. Forward-looking statements, including statements as to industry trends, future expectations and other matters that do not relate strictly to historical facts are based on certain assumptions by management. These statement are often identified by the use of words such as "may," "will," "expect," "plans," "believe," "anticipate," "project," "intend," "could," "estimate," or "continue," "may increase," "may fluctuate," and similar expressions or variations, and are based on the beliefs and assumptions of our management based on information then currently available to management. Such forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from the forward-looking statements include, among others, the risks discussed herein under the heading "Risk Factors." We caution readers to carefully consider such factors. Further, such forward-looking statements speak only as of the date on which such statements are made and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement to reflect events or circumstances after the date of such statements.

References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to "we", "us", "our" and "the Company" are references to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries, consolidated professional corporations and associations and unconsolidated affiliates, unless the context requires otherwise or unless indicated otherwise. References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to "Parent" are references to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. and not to its subsidiaries, consolidated professional corporations and associations and unconsolidated affiliates. References in this Annual Report on Form 10-K to "our treatment centers" refer to owned, managed and hospital based treatment centers.

We are a leading provider of advanced radiation therapy and other clinical services to cancer patients primarily in the United States and Latin America. Our core line of business is offering a comprehensive range of radiation treatment alternatives together with related oncology and other clinical services, where we focus on delivering academic quality, cost-effective patient care in a personal and convenient community setting. Our first radiation treatment center opened in 1983, and as of December 31, 2012, we owned or operated 126 treatment centers, 121 of which are freestanding facilities with the five remaining facilities operated in partnership with hospitals and other groups. Our cancer treatment centers in the United States, most of which operate under the 21st Century Oncology brand, are strategically clustered in 28 local markets in 15 states. We also operate 31 radiation treatment centers in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean where we have been able to uniquely disseminate advanced technology in a cost-effective manner to a growing healthcare population. The majority of our centers in Latin America are operated together with local minority partners. We hold market leading positions in most of our local markets in the United States and abroad.

In order to respond to the changing healthcare landscape, where providers across medical specialties collaborate to provide patient care, we continue to evolve from a freestanding radiation oncology centric model to an Integrated Cancer Care ("ICC") model. This new approach to focus on growing our network of employed or affiliated physicians is providing our patients with a more comprehensive treatment team to better target and treat tumors and improving our patients' experience. We currently employ or affiliate with approximately 460 physicians in the fields of medical oncology, breast, gynecological and general surgery, urology as well as primary care in certain key markets. In many cases, these physicians are co-located with our radiation oncologists. Our ICC model enables us to collaborate with a broader group of physicians in other medical specialties, integrate services for related medical needs, and disseminate best practices across facilities, all of which should help us generate a stronger presence in each market we serve. In addition, we have been proactively pursuing partnership arrangements with hospitals, other providers and payers to further the mission of improving and expanding the continuum of services and clinical resources available to cancer patients. Examples of our successes in these efforts include our selection as the developer and operating partner in the first proton beam therapy center in New York as well as in our success in developing relationships where we can provide value-added services in the field of physician employment and staffing, informatics, technical services and clinical research to other providers.

Our leadership in the transition to the ICC model stems from our position as the largest radiation therapy provider in the United States, by number of centers, as well as our long history of clinical innovation. Our scale along with the systems and processes we have developed to manage a large network of radiation oncology providers afford us many competitive advantages including the advanced medical and technological resources that we are able to leverage. Our physicians are able to access the latest advances in treatment protocols and approaches allowing them to deliver the most effective and

clinically appropriate treatments to our patients in a community setting. Our nationwide presence also enables us to implement best practices by sharing new approaches and recently developed findings across our network. We leverage our size by recruiting, developing and training key clinical personnel. For instance, we operate our own certified dosimetry and certified radiation therapy schools and have an affiliated accredited physics program. These capabilities combined with senior physician leadership, a premier medical board and substantive training and mentoring programs, have allowed us to deliver superior and innovative patient care with the highest quality standards across our centers and disciplines. Furthermore, our operational infrastructure and our network size afford us advantages in areas such as managed care contracting, purchasing, recruiting, billing, compliance, quality assurance and clinical information systems.

Our operating philosophy is centered upon using the latest available and most advanced technology and employing or affiliating with leading physicians to deliver a variety of treatment options to our patients in each local market. To implement this philosophy, we invest in new software, training and equipment with the goal of equipping each local market with state-of-the-art technology that facilitates better clinical results. Through the use of advanced tools and comprehensive clinical protocols, we can improve therapeutic outcomes by determining the right course of treatment at the outset allowing us to precisely target and eradicate cancerous cells and tumors while sparing healthy surrounding tissues and organs. We attract and retain talented physicians and staff by providing opportunities to work in an environment that has a clinical and research focus, superior end-to-end resources and high quality patient care. We have built a national platform of cancer treatment centers while increasing both the revenue and profitability of the Company. Since the beginning of 2003, we have internally developed 25 treatment centers, acquired 69 existing treatment centers, transitioned 2 treatment centers from hospital-based treatment centers to freestanding treatment centers, and from 2009 to 2012, we increased our revenues at a compound annual growth rate of approximately 9.8%. We believe that as our scale continues to increase, our physician-led ICC model along with our operational and financial resources will not only differentiate us from many of our competitors, but will also enhance our attractiveness to patients, referral sources, physicians, hospital partners, employees and acquisition targets. For the year ended December 31, 2012, our total revenue was $694.0 million.

Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation and was incorporated October 9, 2007. Our principal executive office is located at 2270 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida and our telephone number is (239) 931-7275.

Although we are migrating to an ICC model in appropriate markets and circumstances, our primary focus and relevant industry remains related to the provision of radiation therapy for patients with cancer in the United States and Latin America.

We believe the United States radiation therapy market was approximately $8 billion in 2011. The market's growth is driven by the growing number of cancer diagnoses and the development and use of increasingly effective technologies that enable more types of cancer related tumors to be treated with radiation therapy. The American Cancer Society estimates that approximately 1.7 million new cancer cases are expected to be diagnosed in the United States in 2013. As the U.S. population ages, the number of cancer diagnoses is expected to continue to increase, as approximately 77% of all cancers are currently diagnosed in persons 55 years of age and older. Radiation therapy is a primary treatment method for cancer and, according to the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology ("ASTRO") nearly two-thirds of patients diagnosed with cancer receive radiation therapy during their illness. Radiation therapy's share of the cancer treatment market has increased as a result of new radiation therapy technologies that better target cancerous tumors and lead to fewer side effects as compared to other forms of treatment and to previous radiation therapy treatments.

The Latin American radiation therapy market is also expected to continue to grow due to an increase in the number of cancer diagnoses as a result of the growing and aging population. Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil represent approximately 60% of new cancer cases in Latin America and all three markets are less developed than the U.S. market. As a result, mortality rates in Latin America for those diagnosed with cancer are higher than rates in the United States, indicating an opportunity to further improve the availability and type of treatment throughout Latin America. We currently operate in six countries in Latin America, including Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador and Costa Rica, with each country demonstrating varied payer and demographic characteristics and levels of competition and technological advancement. We have expanded our Latin America business into a seventh country, having executed a construction agreement to modify an existing building in Bolivia to provide radiation therapy services. Argentina, with 76% of our Latin American sales, is our largest international market and one of the most developed markets in Latin America. However, while it has an attractive payer base for our services, its penetration of developed technologies is still significantly below the U.S. levels. The underserved population is substantial across all payer levels in less developed markets like Mexico and Bolivia and therefore provides a significant opportunity. Latin American payers are highly diversified in serving the middle and lower class populations and include government, commercial and union plans as well as self pay, all of which are increasingly covering advanced technologies, such as 3D conformal and IMRT, and as such, the development of more advanced technology should continue to expand.

Radiation therapy is used to treat the most common types of cancer, including prostate, breast and lung cancer. Radiation therapy uses high-energy particles or waves, such as x-rays, to destroy cancer cells by delivering high doses of radiation to the tumor through dedicated pieces of equipment, known as a linear accelerator. In addition, when a cure is not possible, radiation therapy is often able to shrink tumors and reduce pressure thereby reducing pain while also relieving other symptoms of the cancer to enhance a patient's quality of life.

Although a significant majority of cancer patients receive radiation therapy treatment, additional treatments for cancer patients include surgery, chemotherapy and/or biological therapy often in conjunction with radiation therapy. Physicians generally choose the appropriate treatment or combination of treatments based upon the type of cancer, its stage of development and where the cancer is located. Radiation therapy patients are usually referred to a treatment center or a radiation oncologist by urologists, breast surgeons, general oncologists and general surgeons, among other sources.

Recent technological advances have produced new methods for radiation treatment. These advanced methods result in more effective treatments that deliver the curative doses of radiation while minimizing the harm to healthy tissues and organs that surround the tumor. Through the use of sophisticated x-ray imaging and radiation beam-shaping equipment now built into a modern linear accelerator, radiation dose can be tightly focused onto a tumor target resulting in fewer side effects and an enhanced quality of life. For example, stereotactic body radiotherapy ("SBRT") combined with tumor tracking or respiratory gating allow cancers located in the lung and liver to be treated with significantly fewer but higher-dose radiation treatments and higher control rates than could be previously achieved with conventional radiotherapy methods. Moreover, results of these advanced treatment methods published in the medical literature rival those of surgery for the same diseases but without the risks of an operation. With the discovery of new, innovative means to deliver radiation therapy and the increasing awareness of advanced treatments with reduced side effects among patients and physicians, radiation therapy is expected to be a preferred method for treating cancer.

The radiation therapy competitive landscape is highly fragmented. In 2011, there were approximately 2,300 locations providing radiation therapy in the United States, of which approximately 970 were freestanding, or non-hospital based treatment centers. Approximately 30% of freestanding treatment centers are affiliated with the largest four provider networks, which includes Radiation

Therapy Services, Inc. The Latin American radiation therapy market is similarly fragmented with most competition coming primarily from hospitals and some smaller local groups. In Argentina we are the largest of four well-established radiation therapy providers, with particularly strong market positions in Buenos Aires, Cordoba and Mendoza. In other Latin American markets, we are the number one or number two provider in the majority of local markets where we operate.

The physician services industry is currently undergoing consolidation of smaller independent physician practices by larger hospital and physician practice groups. A 2010 survey conducted by the Medical Group Management Association indicated that capital investments and ongoing operating costs have pushed physicians to seek a more secure work environment at larger hospitals and Physician Practice Management groups ("PPMs"). More critically, however, consolidation activity is also driven by the capabilities that strong performing hospitals and PPMs can provide. Such services include high quality facilities, state-of-the-art technology, more favorable payer contracts, consistent use of patient protocols, capital and operational support as well as greater IT capabilities. It is estimated that the current consolidation trends will help create new opportunities for physicians to deliver better care coordination to patients and reduce any existing variations in care that do not offer value. In addition, consolidation is expected to lessen the administrative burdens that physician practices face, allowing doctors to focus more on clinical outcomes. As the largest radiation therapy provider in the United States, we feel that we are well-positioned to take advantage of the current consolidation trends and lead the industry's migration to an ICC model due to the vast scale of our network, our advanced infrastructure and clinical talent as well as our successful track record of educating and disseminating advanced technology to physicians in a cost-effective manner.

We believe our radiation treatment centers, and in many markets our comprehensive cancer care centers, are distinguishable from those of many of our competitors because we offer patients a full spectrum of radiation therapy and cancer treatment alternatives, including many advanced radiation treatment options that are not otherwise available in certain local geographies or offered by other providers. Our radiation treatment services include external beam therapies, such as 3D conformal radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic radiosurgery, as well as internal radiation therapy such as high-dose and low-dose rate brachytherapy. In addition, we utilize various supplementary technologies, including image guided radiation therapy, Gamma Function, and respiratory gating to improve the effectiveness of the radiation treatments. Finally, we provide an array of complementary support services in the areas of psychological and nutritional counseling as well as transportation assistance, consistent with applicable regulatory guidelines.

External Beam Therapy. External beam radiation therapy involves directing a high-energy x-ray beam generated from a linear accelerator to the patient's tumor. Equipment utilized for external beam radiation therapy vary as some are better for treating cancers near the surface of the skin and others are better for treating cancers deeper in the body. A linear accelerator, the most common type of equipment used for external beam radiation therapy, can create both high-energy and low-energy radiation. High-energy radiation is used to treat many types of cancer while low-energy radiation is used to treat some forms of skin cancer. A course of external beam radiation therapy typically ranges from 20 to 40 treatments.

Internal Radiation Therapy. Internal radiation therapy, also called brachytherapy, involves the placement of a radiation-emitting element within or adjacent to the patient's tumor. Brachytherapy usually requires an operating room procedure for either insertion of the radiation source to remain permanently in the cancerous organ or insertion of thin plastic tubes to allow for temporary placement of a radiation source within the tumor after which both the source and the tubes are removed from the body. Internal radiation therapy delivers a higher dose of radiation in a shorter time than is possible with external beam treatments. Internal radiation therapy is typically used for cancers of the lung,

esophagus, breast, uterus, thyroid, cervix and prostate. Implants may be removed after a short time or left in place permanently (with the radioactivity of the implant dissipating over a short time frame). Temporary implants may be either low-dose rate or high-dose rate. Low-dose rate implants are left in place for several days; high-dose rate implants are removed after a few minutes.

Since all of our treatment centers are clustered into local markets, our treatment centers are distinguished from those of many of our competitors by our ability to offer advanced radiation therapy and integrated cancer care services. Our advanced radiation treatment services include: image guided radiation therapy, intensity modulated radiation therapy, 3-D conformal treatment planning, stereotactic radiosurgery Gamma Function, respiratory gating and high-dose and low-dose rate brachytherapy.

We were recently selected as the developer and managing partner of the first proton beam therapy center in New York. Our partners include five of the largest cancer care programs at key academic institutions in New York including Memorial Sloan-Kettering, NYU Langone, Mt. Sinai, Continuum and Montefiore. We anticipate the proton center to be operational and treating its first patients in late-2016. In addition, we have started beta testing for adaptive radiotherapy and have developed an internal development group, Aurora, to focus on refining and commercializing both of these technologies which we believe will be critical treatment alternatives for cancer patients in the future.

The following table sets forth the forms of radiation therapy treatments and advanced services that we currently offer:

Technologies		Description

External Beam Therapy
3D Conformal Radiation Therapy		Enables radiation oncologists to utilize medical linear accelerator x-ray machines to direct radiation beams at the cancer.
Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ("IMRT")		Enables radiation oncologists to adjust the intensity of the radiation beam and shape the radiation dose to match the size and shape of the treated tumor with a higher degree of precision than 3D conformal therapy. The net clinical result of this technology is the delivery of higher, more effective radiation doses to tumors while reducing radiation exposure of the surrounding normal, healthy organs.
Stereotactic Radiosurgery ("SRS")		Enables delivery of highly precise, high-dose radiation to small tumors. Stereotactic radiosurgery utilizes additional treatment technologies to deliver treatment with greater precision and accuracy than either IMRT or 3D therapy. Historically, stereotactic radiosurgery was used primarily for brain tumors but recent advancements in imaging and radiation delivery technologies have allowed for expanding applications of this technology to the treatment of extra cranial cancers.
Internal Radiation Therapy
High-Dose Rate Remote Brachytherapy		Enables radiation oncologists to treat cancer by internally delivering high doses of radiation directly to the cancer using temporarily implanted radioactive elements.

Technologies		Description

Low-Dose Rate Brachytherapy		Enables radiation oncologists to treat cancer by internally delivering doses of radiation directly to the cancer over an extended period of time using permanently implanted radioactive elements (e.g., prostate seed implants).
Advanced Services Used with External Beam Treatment Therapies
Image Guided Radiation Therapy ("IGRT")		Enables radiation oncologists to utilize x-ray imaging at the time of treatment to identify the exact position of the tumor within the patient's body and adjust the radiation beam to that position for better accuracy.
Gamma Function		Proprietary capability that for the first time enables measurement of the actual amount of radiation delivered during a treatment. Gamma Function also enables the verification of radiation delivery and the comparison to the physician prescription and treatment plans. Further, it provides the physician with information to adjust for changes in tumor size and location, and ensures immediate feedback for adaption of future treatments as well as for quality assurance.
Respiratory Gating		Coordinates treatment beam activation with the respiratory motion of the patient, thereby permitting accurate delivery of radiation dosage to a tumor that moves with breathing, such as lung and liver cancers.
Operating Technologies Under Development
Proton Therapy		Form of radiation treatment that utilizes subatomic particles instead of x-rays and can achieve better radiation sparing of surrounding normal organs for certain tumor types.
Adaptive Radiotherapy		A novel approach to radiation therapy that is currently under development at our Company and a small number of academic medical centers, adaptive radiotherapy is a process that will automatically trigger a new treatment plan during the course of therapy in order to adapt to anatomic changes that occur to the tumor. For example, as a tumor shrinks during treatment, adaptive radiotherapy will respond by generating a new treatment plan customized to the smaller tumor and further spare radiation exposure of nearby healthy organs.

Conformal Beam Treatment. This technology allows the radiation oncologist to utilize a linear accelerator machine to direct radiation beams at the cancer. Utilization of specialized equipment and planning systems allow 3D computer images to be accessed to develop complex plans to deliver highly-conformed (focused) radiation while sparing normal adjacent tissue.

Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy. With IMRT, radiation can be focused at thousands of pinpoints and delivered by varying levels of beam intensity directly to a tumor. Because IMRT uses variable intensity beams, it can be used to treat tumors to higher doses and better spare normal tissue.

IMRT technology can be programmed to actually wrap and angle beams of radiation around normal tissue and organs, protecting healthy tissue as it destroys the tumor. As such, IMRT patients typically experience fewer side effects, which helps them to maintain their strength and lead more normal lifestyles during treatment.

Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Stereotactic Radiotherapy. Stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy involves a single or a few intense high-dose fraction(s) of radiation to a small area. This form of therapy typically is used to treat tumors that cannot be treated by other means, such as surgery or chemotherapy. Precise calculations for radiation delivery are required. Treatment also requires extensive clinical planning and is provided in conjunction with the referring surgeon and under the direct supervision of a radiation oncologist and a physicist. Stereotactic radiosurgery often involves very careful immobilization of the patient. For example, cranial radiosurgery might involve the use of a neurosurgical head frame to assure precise tumor localization. With recent advances in imaging technologies, stereotactic radiosurgery can now be used to treat extra-cranial cancers to a higher dose with target localization and image verifications. These advances broaden the types of cancers that can be successfully treated with stereotactic radiosurgery.

Brachytherapy. Brachytherapy involves the use of surgical and fiberoptic procedures to place high-dose rate or low-dose rate sources of radiation in the patient's body. This technique is used for implantation of sources into the prostate, intraluminal therapy within the esophagus and endobronchial therapy within the lungs, among other places within the body. Prostate seed implants involve the permanent placement of radioactive pellets within the prostate gland.

High-Dose Rate Remote Brachytherapy. In high-dose rate remote brachytherapy, a computer sends the radioactive source through a tube to a catheter or catheters that have been placed near the tumor by the specialist working with the radiation oncologist. The radioactivity remains at the tumor for only a few minutes. In some cases, several remote treatments may be required, and the catheters may stay in place between treatments. High-dose rate remote brachytherapy is available in most of our local markets and patients receiving this treatment are able to return home after each treatment. This form of brachytherapy has been used to treat cancers of the cervix, breast, lung, biliary tree, prostate and esophagus. MammoSite® Radiation Therapy is used for partial breast irradiation and works by delivering radiation from inside the lumpectomy cavity directly to the tissue where the cancer is most likely to recur.

Low-Dose Rate Brachytherapy. We are actively involved in radioactive seed implantation for prostate cancer, the most frequent application of low-dose rate brachytherapy. There are several advantages to low-dose rate brachytherapy in the treatment of prostate cancer, including convenience to the patient as the patient generally can resume normal daily activities within hours after the procedure. This procedure is performed by a team of physicians and staff with nearly a decade of experience in prostate brachytherapy. During the procedure, radioactive sources or "seeds" are inserted directly into the prostate, minimizing radiation exposure to surrounding tissues while permitting an escalation of the dose concentrated in the area of the cancer.

Advanced Services. We also offer advanced services, such as IGRT, Gamma Function testing, respiratory gating and conformal treatment planning.

Image Guided Radiation Therapy. This technology provides the radiation oncologist with a mechanism to achieve increased precision in radiation therapy targeting. The technique utilizes high-resolution x-rays, CT scans or ultrasound imaging to pinpoint internal tumor sites before treatment and overcomes the limitations of conventional skin marking traditionally used for patient positioning. IGRT represents the convergence of medical imaging and high precision external beam therapy.

Gamma Function. Gamma Function is a proprietary capability that for the first time enables measurement of the actual amount of radiation delivered during a treatment. This technology consists of an x-ray detector that measures the output of a radiation beam as it exits from the patient, and software that calculates the dose received by the patient from this output measurement. Additional software then performs a statistical comparison of the calculated dose with the planned radiation dose and notifies the radiation oncologist of any significant deviations between the treatment plan and the actual dose delivery. This provides the physician with information to adjust for changes in tumor size and location and ensures immediate feedback for adaption of future treatments as well as for quality assurance.

Respiratory Gating. This noninvasive technique allows radiation targeting and delivery to account for respiratory motion in the treatment of cancers in the lung and upper abdomen, protecting healthy structures while directing higher doses of radiation to the tumor. Respiratory gating matches radiation treatment to a patient's respiratory pattern. When a person breathes, the chest wall moves in and out, and any structures inside the chest and upper abdomen also move. In the past, when radiation beams were aimed at a target inside those areas of the body, movement had to be accounted for by planning a large treatment area. With respiratory gating, radiation treatment is timed to an individual's breathing pattern with the beam delivered only when the tumor is in the targeted area.

3-D Conformal Treatment Planning. 3-D conformal treatment planning and computer simulation produces an accurate image of the tumor and surrounding organs so that multiple radiation beams can be shaped exactly to the contour of the treatment area. Because the radiation beams are precisely focused, nearby normal tissue is spared from radiation. In 3-D conformal treatment planning, state-of-the-art radiation therapy immobilization devices and computerized dosimetric software are utilized so that CT scans can be directly incorporated into the radiation therapy plan.

All of our markets provide external beam treatments and following is a list of the advanced services and treatments that we offer within each of our 28 domestic local markets as of December 31, 2012:

										Stereotactic		Brachytherapy

Local market	Year Established		Number of Centers		IMRT	3-D	Gamma	Gating	IGRT	Cranial	Extra- Cranial	High Dose	Low Dose
Lee County—Florida		1983		6	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Charlotte/Desoto Counties—Florida		1986		1	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Sarasota/Manatee Counties—Florida		1992		6	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Collier County—Florida		1993		4	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Broward County—Florida		1993		7	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Miami/Dade County—Florida		1996		1	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Las Vegas, Nevada		1997		4	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Westchester/Bronx—New York		1997		3	ü	ü	ü		ü		ü	ü	ü
Mohawk Valley, New York		1998		2	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü	ü
Delmarva Peninsula		1998		2	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü	ü
Northwest Florida		2001		3	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Western North Carolina		2002		7	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü	ü
Palm Beach County—Florida		2002		1	ü	ü	ü		ü			ü
Central Kentucky		2003		4	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Florida Keys		2003		1	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü	ü
Southeastern Alabama		2003		2	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Central Maryland		2003		6	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
South New Jersey		2004		4	ü	ü	ü		ü			ü
Rhode Island		2004		4	ü	ü	ü		ü			ü
Central Arizona		2005		5	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Central Massachusetts		2005		2	ü	ü	ü		ü
Palm Springs, California		2005		4	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Los Angeles, California		2006		2	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü	ü
Southeastern Michigan		2006		5	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü
Northern California		2007		3	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü		ü	ü
Eastern North Carolina		2007		4	ü	ü	ü		ü		ü	ü
Northeast Florida		2008		1	ü	ü	ü		ü		ü
South Carolina		2010		1	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü	ü

				95

All of our international markets provide external beam treatments and following is a list of the advanced services and treatments that we offer within international markets as of December 31, 2012:

We believe that the following competitive strengths have allowed us to achieve and maintain our position as a leading provider of radiation therapy and provide us with the necessary tools to become the leading ICC model in the United States and Latin America:

International Platform with Strong Local Market Positions—As of December 31, 2012, we serve patients in 28 domestic markets across 15 states, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island and West Virginia, and we recently expanded into international markets,—primarily Latin America. Most of our cancer treatment centers are strategically clustered into regional networks (which we refer to as our local markets) in order to leverage our clinical and operational expertise and resources over a larger patient population and maximize our investment in advanced technologies. For example, our local markets enable us to share scarce and expensive medical physicists, who are critical in the process of developing the radiation treatment plan for each patient as well as making sure the equipment is properly calibrated. By staffing two physicists at three to four treatment centers in each of our local markets, as opposed to each treatment center, we are able to increase resource utilization and provide enhanced and consistent treatment in a cost effective manner. Another example is our ability to provide our patients with a full set of clinical alternatives through our ICC relationships in certain markets, as well as our ability to offer them the full technological spectrum in radiation therapy, including less common treatment alternatives, by equipping each of our local markets, as opposed to each treatment center, with the necessary technology and know-how and thus doing so on a more cost-effective basis. Our scale also allows us to serve as a center for leading clinical research and technological advances, which help us attract and retain talented radiation oncologists, physicians, physicists and other professionals. Furthermore, our large platform in the United States and Latin America, and our reputation, recruiting ability and market knowledge enable us to respond quickly and efficiently to new acquisition as well as internally developed ("de novo") and joint venture opportunities. Since the beginning of 2003, we have acquired or developed 94 treatment centers, transitioned two treatment centers from hospital-based treatment centers to freestanding treatment centers, entered into 15 new local markets and expanded into international markets including Latin America as of December 31, 2012. Finally, our centralized approach to business functions such as purchasing, engineering and service, accounting, administration, billing and information technology enables us to leverage economies of scale in various direct and indirect costs.

Best in Class Clinical and Technological Platform—We believe that we have the best in class technology, which allows us to provide the highest quality of care and clinically advanced treatment options to our patients. We consistently upgrade our equipment and technology and we believe they

will require minimal maintenance capital expenditures in the near future. We believe we are the market leader in the utilization of advanced technologies, such as IMRT, IGRT and our recently developed Gamma Function. These technologies are more effective at treating many forms of cancer than other, older technologies such as conformal beam. Our continuous and early adoption of technology platforms has allowed us to implement and share technology across centers very quickly and therefore enhance clinical expertise within the Company and the industry overall. Our Chief Technology Officer, who is certified in radiotherapy physics, has received numerous awards, serves as an adjunct professor, is a published author in a variety of fields and has spent 20 years in his current role with the Company managing 79 physicists in the United States and an internal radiation equipment development and maintenance team. He also leads our Aurora team which is recognized as a leader in establishing and disseminating advancements in radiation therapy, including important developments in proton beam therapy and adaptive radiotherapy. Our Chief Medical Officer has been with the Company for 10 years and is a leading radiation oncologist who conducts radiation therapy research projects, publishes professional journal articles and presents at national cancer treatment meetings. These members of management and the teams that they lead provide both technical and clinical expertise throughout our network, enhancing the level of patient care, safety and quality control. In addition, as we have grown our field of other cancer care specialists, we have added experts in the field of urology, medical oncology and surgery, among others. These professionals have a national platform for sharing best practices and clinical outcomes, thereby improving the full continuum of care from diagnosis to discharge. We feel our clinical and technological platform provides us with a significant competitive advantage in attracting new professional talent, upgrading equipment, clinical services and operations of acquired centers and the opportunity to distinguish ourselves with referral sources, physicians, payers and patients.

Leading Radiation Oncologists—We have been successful in recruiting, acquiring practices from, and retaining radiation oncologists with excellent academic and clinical backgrounds who we believe have potential for professional growth. Our approximately 111 radiation oncologists in the domestic United States have an average of over 17 years of experience and we believe our most senior clinical leadership are regarded as industry leaders. As a physician-led organization, we value superior training, research capabilities and mentoring. In addition to being educated and trained at some of the world's most prestigious and well recognized medical training centers and universities, our physicians have held positions in radiation oncology's elite research institutes, societies and regulatory bodies. These institutions and societies include ASTRO, American College of Radiation Oncology ("ACRO"), Association of Freestanding Radiation Oncology Centers ("AFROC") and Radiation Therapy Oncology Group. Our clinical leadership also publishes frequently as academic contributors, having co-authored numerous white papers, radiation therapy research projects and empirical studies in a wide range of international and domestic medical journals. We attract and retain our existing physicians by:

Favorable Industry Dynamics—Cancer treatment is a large and growing market. In 2012, there were approximately 13.7 million people living with cancer or with a history of cancer in the United States. The market has been growing with approximately 1.7 million new cases expected to be diagnosed in the United States in 2013. Radiation therapy remains a core treatment for cancer with nearly two-thirds of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy during their illness. The U.S. radiation therapy market was estimated to be approximately $8 billion in 2011. We believe the Latin American market exceeds $1.1 billion in value for radiation therapy treatments and is growing 2-4% per year. Compared to the U.S. market, the Latin American radiation therapy market is less developed, with higher mortality rates for those diagnosed with cancer, leading to more favorable dynamics as countries seek to improve their clinical offerings. We believe that several factors will contribute to the continued expansion of the cancer treatment market and increased utilization of radiation therapy as one of the primary treatment methods, including:

Stable and Growing Business with Strong Operating Cash Flow—There are several underlying factors that we believe contribute to the stability and growing performance of our business; most notably, the aging of the population and resultant rise in cancer cases, the opportunity for profitable growth in the Latin American radiation therapy market and that radiation therapy remains a primary tool used to treat cancer. Additionally, our growth is attributable to our utilization of more advanced treatment technologies, which typically generates higher revenue and margins. In addition to stable and growing revenues, our base business includes characteristics that produce significant operating cash flow such as low operating costs and minimal working capital needs. The generation of operating cash flow allows us to either reinvest in our business through capital expenditures and growth initiatives and/or reduce indebtedness, each as determined by our business and financial strategies.

Strong Track Record of Successful Acquisitions and De Novo Facility Development—We have grown at a measured pace through a focused strategy of acquisitions, development of freestanding centers and hospital based joint ventures. Since the beginning of 2003, we have acquired 69 treatment centers and transitioned two treatment centers from hospital-based treatment centers to freestanding treatment centers and have a successful track record of integrating our acquisitions as a result of our ability to leverage regional resources and technology, improve the mix of treatments and put in place more favorable contracts for insurance and medical supplies that take advantage of our size and scale. We

have also been successful at identifying opportunities where we can deploy our ICC model and drive improved financial and clinical stability through a comprehensive service offering. We have a deep corporate development team and unique market analysis software that enables us to proactively identify and prioritize acquisition targets based on demographics, payer landscape, ICC opportunity and competition, among other factors. In 2010, approximately 30% of the U.S. market's freestanding centers were affiliated with the four largest provider networks, which include Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. In addition, a significant number of hospital management companies are looking to build or expand comprehensive cancer offerings and are interested in joint ventures with providers such as our Company. As a result, we believe our pipeline of potential targets is robust and acquisitions will remain a significant part of our core growth strategy. As a leading national platform company in the industry, we believe we are a preferred acquirer in light of the services and benefits we can offer.

Since the beginning of 2003, we have also developed 25 de novo treatment centers, including joint ventures with hospitals as of December 31, 2012, and we continue to seek opportunities to develop additional de novo treatment centers as a means to strengthen our local market share. De novo treatment centers allow us to penetrate underserved markets, partner with hospitals which have significant market presence or extend our local network and typically require lower initial capital expenditures. De novo treatment centers typically generate positive cash flow within six months after opening in an existing market and twelve to fifteen months after opening in a new market.

Experienced and Committed Management Team and Equity Sponsor—Our senior management team, several of whom are practicing radiation oncologists, has extensive public and private sector experience in healthcare, in particular radiation oncology. 12 of our senior management team have been with us for an average of 14 years and average approximately 17 years in the radiation therapy industry. In addition, our Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, Senior Vice President of Managed Care and Senior Vice President of Marketing have deep functional expertise in relevant organizations including positions at our sponsor Vestar Capital Partners, DaVita Inc., United Health Group and Bravo Health. This new talent is augmenting a successful management team that has since 1999, led the Company in growing from $56.4 million in total revenues to $694.0 million of total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2012 and creates both management breadth and depth in a team that combines outstanding clinical and medical experience with significant operational and financial expertise. Management has over $120 million currently invested in the Company. In addition, our equity sponsor, Vestar, which along with its affiliates has over $500 million currently invested in the Company, has considerable experience making successful investments in a wide variety of industries, including healthcare.

We believe we are in a superior position relative to our competitors to capitalize on the opportunities in our markets given our size, market locations, access to capital and clinical expertise as well as our experienced physician base and management team. The key elements to our strategy are:

Maintain Emphasis on Service and Quality of Care—We focus on providing our patients with an environment that minimizes the stress and uncertainty of being diagnosed with and treated for cancer. We aim to enhance patients' overall quality of life by providing technologically advanced radiation treatment alternatives that deliver more effective radiation directly to cancerous cells while minimizing harm to surrounding tissues and organs in order to reduce side effects. As an example, one of our most recent technologies, Gamma Function, provides enhanced quality control during treatment delivery. Gamma Function effectively measures the radiation byproduct, or throughput, as the beam exits the body, thereby measuring the accuracy of the radiation delivery to the prescribed tumor site and giving the physician more frequent opportunities to re-design and improve treatment plans during a course of an overall treatment regimen. Additionally, we verify every accelerator's output daily and voluntarily re-calibrate each machine annually using the services provided by the M.D. Anderson Radiation Physics

Center at the University of Texas to ensure that our stringent quality control standards are met. Over 80% of our facilities have been accredited or are in the process of being accredited, by an independent third party, which we believe is unique in the industry. Accreditation requires centers to meet stringent and consistent quality measures over a three year period. We have a compliance program that is consistent with guidelines issued by the OIG of the DHHS. Our compliance team, led by a senior officer who has been with the Company since 2004, coupled with our in-house physics and engineering departments, complements our front-end focus on employing the best physicians and using the most advanced technologies to provide our patients with superior care in a safe and quality controlled environment.

Our treatment centers are designed to deliver high-quality radiation therapy in a patient friendly environment and are generally located in convenient, community based settings. We make every effort to see patients within 24 hours of a referral and to begin treatment as soon as possible thereafter. In addition, our physicians are available to patients at any time to discuss proposed treatments, possible side effects and expected results of treatment. Finally, we offer support services in the areas of psychological and nutritional counseling as well as transportation assistance, consistent with applicable regulatory guidelines, each of which serves to improve the patient experience. We believe our focus on patient service enhances the quality of care provided, differentiates us from other ICC providers and sole radiation therapy providers and strengthens our relationships with both our referring and affiliated physicians.

Increase Revenue and Profitability of Our Existing Treatment Centers—We plan to continue to provide capital, support and technology to our existing centers to drive increased census, improve treatment mix and leverage our strong market presence to generate operating efficiencies. We believe our scale and strategy of clustering treatment centers in local markets provide unique advantages for driving referrals, improving payer relationships and enhancing our clinical reputation, all of which lead to growth in patient volume. In the beginning of 2011, we successfully initiated a physician liaison program to educate referring physicians, patients, and caregivers about our clinical and technological offerings as well as our commitment to providing a positive patient experience. Since that time, we have grown from three physician liaisons to 19 as of December 31, 2012. This program was a major contributor to improved same practice volume growth over the course of fiscal 2012. In addition, we have been aggressively consolidating and renegotiating our payer contracts to improve the pricing and stability of the relationships with our commercial payers while also aligning objectives through innovative payment approaches. Our early efforts in several markets have yielded encouraging results, and we expect to expand this program to new markets in 2013.

We have also restructured our operations into eight domestic regions with separate directors all reporting to our new Chief Operating Officer. We have consolidated talent at these senior positions to provide a more experienced level of business leadership and provide greater visibility for improved results while also allowing us to streamline positions at the state and center level. Currently we believe that there is an opportunity to reduce operating expense through improved physician contracting, purchasing and reduction in other operating expenses. In addition, greater integration between our operations team and our clinical and corporate development leadership has led to enhanced market opportunities. We are now better able to target attractive ICC opportunities to improve market dynamics as well as identify a number of centers for closure where the existing patient volume could be serviced with a smaller, lower cost configuration of centers. Going forward, we believe this dual operating and clinical structure will not only continue to help us focus on increasing operating leverage but also more quickly facilitate the rollout of the ICC model and penetration of advanced technology and treatment methods across our centers.

Continue to Lead in Clinical Excellence—For more than 20 years, we believe we have differentiated ourselves from other industry participants by proactively investing in a superior, research driven clinical and technological infrastructure that has advanced our clinical treatment capabilities. In 1989, we

founded and continue to run the only fully accredited privately owned radiation therapy and dosimetry schools in the country. In addition, we have an affiliated physics program with the University of Pennsylvania. As a result, we have recruited, trained, certified and retained many highly talented medical physicists, dosimetrists and radiation therapists. Further, we have consistently invested in industry leading and revolutionary technologies, through partnerships with renowned research institutes, proprietary experimental research entities and other for-profit businesses. An example of this partnership, is our selection as the developer and managing director of the first proton beam therapy center in New York in concert with academic institutions including Memorial Sloan-Kettering, NYU Langone, Mt. Sinai, Continuum and Montefiore medical centers. We have also, through our own research initiatives and resources, developed and implemented treatment technologies exclusive to the Company. For example, Gamma Function is an in-house developed software tool that we use to measure the quality of radiation therapy delivered to our patients. Our internal advanced development group, Aurora, is continuing to investigate and advance the field of radiation therapy through projects such as Gamma Function, proton beam therapy and adaptive radiotherapy as well as develop applications which can be licensed to other providers.

As a result of our history and reputation for clinical excellence, we continue to develop more formalized initiatives to use the scale and depth of our unique technological and clinical resources to develop new lines of "value added services". To date, we have been able to commercialize our data to lead and support studies and programs measuring quality outcomes of various treatment protocols and are currently investigating opportunities with a number of providers to license and implement our technologies at their centers.

Expand Through Acquisitions—Acquisitions are an important part of our expansion plan, and we have invested in unique tools and a substantial infrastructure to capitalize on acquisition opportunities. We seek to target centers that have certificates of need (CON), provide entry into new markets with significant market share or shore up our existing markets and have opportunities to expand our ICC model. We seek to employ the leading radiation oncologists at these centers and meaningfully enhance the business through technology migration. The foundation of our acquisition strategy is the implementation of our proven operating model at each of our newly acquired treatment centers. This includes upgrading existing equipment and technologies where applicable, enhancing treatment mix, developing ICC relationships, introducing advanced therapies and services, providing clinical expertise and enabling our new physicians and patients to access our broad network of centers, contracts and resources. For example, our existing physicians and clinical experts are often able to educate the physicians at our acquired centers on the clinical benefits of using advanced technologies such as IMRT, IGRT and Gamma Function, thereby increasing the penetration of these services in the center's overall treatment mix and resulting in higher average revenue per treatment, increased census, increased profitability and improved patient care. We are currently considering a number of acquisition opportunities, some of which could be material.

Develop New Treatment Centers in Existing and New Markets—We plan to develop treatment centers to expand our existing local markets and selectively enter new local markets. As of December 31, 2012, we had two de novo treatment centers under development in the United States and two de novo treatment centers under development in Latin America. We have significant experience in the design and construction of radiation treatment centers, having internally developed 25 treatment centers since the beginning of 2003. In 2009, we opened de novo treatment centers in Hammonton, New Jersey; Indio, California; Fort Myers, Florida; Southbridge, Massachusetts; Providence, Rhode Island and Yucca Valley, California. In 2010, we opened de novo treatment centers in Pembroke Pines, Florida and Los Angeles, California. In 2011, we opened one de novo treatment center in Andalusia, Alabama. In 2012, we opened one de novo treatment center in Argentina. We evaluate potential expansion into new and existing local markets based on demographic characteristics, pre-existing or potential relationships with ICC physicians or hospitals, the competitive landscape and the payer and regulatory

environments. Our newly developed treatment centers typically achieve positive cash flow within six to fifteen months after opening, depending upon whether it is an existing or new market, and the use of third party leasing minimizes our up front capital requirements. We may also from time to time enter new local markets through strategic alliances and joint ventures.

Continue to Develop and Expand Our ICC Model—In select local markets, it may be advantageous to affiliate with physicians in medical specialties in addition to those focused on radiation therapy, but are involved in the continuum of care for cancer patients. We may pursue these affiliations when opportunities arise to provide our patients with a more comprehensive treatment team to better target and treat tumors as well as coordinate in the provision of care. In these instances, we believe we can further strengthen both our clinical working relationships and our standing within the local medical community. We currently operate as an ICC practice in 17 local markets and have affiliations with approximately 460 of such physicians in the field, including medical oncology, breast, gynecological, urological and general surgical oncology as well as primary care.

We also look for similar arrangements with hospitals where we can generate greater awareness of our services with patients in the local markets while capitalizing on census already in the market.

Seek Greater Alignment As Well As Pricing Stability Through Alternative Payment Structures —The Company, through its leadership in the development of the RTA, an organization representing freestanding, for-profit radiation providers, has been at the forefront of discussions on payment reform in the radiation therapy space since the RTA's inception in 2009. In 2010, after working with a pre-eminent consulting firm, the RTA drafted a proposal on a prostate cancer bundle that was well received for its quality and cost metrics. On February 22, 2012, President Obama signed into law H.R. 3630, which mandated that the Department of Health and Human Services conduct a study examining, among other things, bundled payments for cancer services. We believe we are well positioned as the government begins to innovate with payment reform due to our proactive discussions in this area.

In addition we have begun discussions on alternative payment structures and other contracting arrangements with key commercial payers. Our early initiatives in this area have yielded positive results in preferred provider arrangements and increased volume as well as in longer dated contracts. As a national provider of radiation therapy and other cancer services, we are uniquely positioned in these discussions with public and private payers and believe alignment with payers will be critical for long-term success in our markets.

Selectively Expand in Latin America—Outside of the United States we continue to look for opportunities to selectively expand our presence in Latin America by further developing existing markets and entering new markets through either de novo treatment centers, joint ventures or acquisitions. There are several markets outside of our current Latin America footprint, such as Brazil, Mexico, and Uruguay, which have very attractive demographic, payer and competitive characteristics and we believe we are positioned to capitalize on opportunities in these markets. Our significant foothold in the regions in which we operate, positions us to take advantage of the growing pipeline of opportunities for further acquisitions. The Latin American radiation therapy market is largely under-developed and fragmented, with physicians frequently utilizing older generation equipment and technologies including cobalt machines. In addition, there are significant opportunities to transfer equipment, which is not being utilized in the United States, to our Latin American centers and thereby increase our overall equipment utilization. Our existing physicians and clinical experts are beginning to educate the physicians at our acquired centers on the clinical benefits of using advanced technologies such as IMRT and IGRT, thereby increasing the penetration of these services in the center's overall treatment mix and resulting in higher average revenue per treatment, increased profitability and improved patient care.

Our Latin American leadership team has significant experience working in the Latin American markets, having grown our Latin American business from 21 to 31 centers from 2009 to the end of 2012. We will continue to utilize our Latin American leadership team's market knowledge and relationships to selectively grow in the region.

We have 29 years of experience operating radiation treatment centers and over time have increasingly affiliated with physicians and other cancer care specialists. We have developed an integrated operating model, which is comprised of the following key elements:

Treatment Center Operations. Our treatment centers are designed specifically to deliver high-quality radiation therapy in a patient-friendly environment. A treatment center typically has one or two linear accelerators, with additional rooms for simulators, CT scans, physician offices, film processing and physics functions. In addition, treatment centers include a patient waiting room, dressing rooms, exam rooms and hospitality rooms, all of which are designed to minimize patient discomfort. In 24 of our treatment centers other cancer care specialists are co-located with our radiation therapy specialists. The remainder of our affiliated or employed non-radiation therapy physicians operate their practice with the relevant technical and clinical resources necessary to their disciplines.

Cancer patients referred to one of our radiation oncologists are provided with an initial consultation, which includes an evaluation of the patient's condition to determine if radiation therapy is appropriate, followed by a discussion of the effects of the therapy. If radiation therapy is selected as a method of treatment, the medical staff engages in clinical treatment planning. Clinical treatment planning utilizes x-rays, CT imaging, ultrasound, positron emission tomography ("PET") imaging and, in many cases, advanced computerized 3-D conformal imaging programs, in order to locate the tumor, determine the best treatment modality and the treatment's optimal radiation dosage, and select the appropriate treatment regimen.

Our radiation treatment centers typically range from 5,000 to 12,000 square feet, have a radiation oncologist and a staff ranging between ten and 25 people, depending on treatment center capacity and patient volume. The typical radiation therapy treatment center staff includes: radiation therapists, who deliver the radiation therapy, medical assistants or medical technicians, an office financial manager, receptionist, transcriptionist, block cutter, file clerk and van driver. In markets where we have more than one treatment center, we can more efficiently provide certain specialists to each treatment center, such as physicists, dosimetrists and engineers who service the treatment centers within that local market.

Standardized Operating Procedures. We have developed standardized operating procedures for our treatment centers in order to ensure that our professionals are able to operate uniformly and efficiently. Our manuals, policies and procedures are refined and modified as needed to increase productivity and efficiency and to provide for the safety of our employees and patients. We believe that our standard operating procedures facilitate the interaction of physicians, physicists, dosimetrists, radiation therapists and other employees and permit the interchange of employees among our treatment centers. In addition, standardized procedures facilitate the training of new employees.

Coding and Billing. Coding involves the translation of data from a patient's medical chart to our billing system for submission to third-party payers. Our treatment centers provide radiation therapy services under approximately 60 different professional and technical codes, which determine reimbursement. Our Chief Medical Officer and Chief Compliance Officer along with our certified professional coders work together to establish coding and billing rules and procedures to be utilized at our radiation treatment centers providing consistency across centers. In each radiation treatment center, our certified coders are in charge of executing these rules and procedures with the trained personnel

located at each treatment center. To provide an external check on the integrity of the coding process, we conduct internal audits and have also retained the services of a third-party consultant to review and assess our coding procedures and processes on a periodic basis. Billing and collection functions are centrally performed by staff at our executive offices. This allows us to acquire and develop radiation oncology as well as other ICC practices with limited additional resources. Additionally, in an effort to improve collection of patient receivables, we have increased efforts to confirm patient eligibility with payers, verify specific insurance coverage, and facilitate individual payment plans.

Management Information Systems. We utilize centralized management information systems to closely monitor data related to each treatment center's operations and financial performance. Our management information systems are used to track patient data, physician productivity and coding, as well as billing functions. Our management information systems also provide monthly budget analyses, financial comparisons to prior periods and comparisons among treatment centers, thus enabling management to evaluate the individual and collective performance of our treatment centers. We developed a proprietary image and text retrieval system referred to as the Oncology Wide-Area Network ("OWAN"), which facilitates the storage and review of patient medical charts and films. We periodically review our management information systems for possible refinements and upgrading. Our management information systems personnel install and maintain our system hardware, develop and maintain specialized software and are able to integrate the systems of the practices we acquire.

Maintenance and Physics Departments. We have established maintenance and physics departments which implement standardized procedures for the acquisition, installation, calibration, use, maintenance and replacement of our linear accelerators, simulators and related equipment, as well as to the overall operation of our treatment centers. Our engineers, in conjunction with manufacturers' representatives, perform preventive maintenance, repairs and installations of our linear accelerators. This enables our treatment centers to ensure quality, maximize equipment productivity and minimize downtime. In addition, the maintenance department maintains a warehouse of linear accelerator parts in order to provide equipment backup. Our physicists monitor and test the accuracy and integrity of each of our linear accelerators on a regular basis to ensure the safety and effectiveness of patient treatment. This testing also helps ensure that the linear accelerators are uniformly and properly calibrated. Independent machine verifications are done annually using the services provided by the M.D. Anderson Radiation Physics Center to confirm proper calibrations. This allows us to reduce down time, complete preventative maintenance, and improve reliability in a cost effective manner, including in our Latin American operations.

Total Quality Management Program. We strive to achieve total quality management throughout our organization. Our treatment centers, either directly or in cooperation with the appropriate professional corporation or hospital, have a standardized total quality management program consisting of programs to monitor the design of the individual treatment of the patient via the evaluation of charts by radiation oncologists, physicists, dosimetrists and radiation therapists and for the ongoing validation of radiation therapy equipment. Each of our new radiation oncologists is assigned to a senior radiation oncologist who reviews each patient's course of treatment through the patient's medical chart using our OWAN. Furthermore, the data in our patient database is used to evaluate patient outcomes and to modify treatment patterns as necessary to improve patient care. We also utilize patient questionnaires to monitor patient satisfaction with the radiation therapy they receive. Using the data from these questionnaires, as well as third-party data, we assign each of our physicians and centers a patient satisfaction score, which helps us identify opportunities for improvement and better understand best practices within our treatment centers.

Clinical Research. We believe that a well-managed clinical research program enhances the reputation of our radiation oncologists and our ability to recruit new radiation oncologists. Our treatment centers participate in national cooperative group trials and we have a full-time, in-house

research staff to assure compliance with such trials and to perform related outcome analyses. We maintain a proprietary database of information on over 139,000 patients. The data collected includes tumor characteristics such as stage, histology and grade, radiation treatment parameters, other treatments delivered and complications. This data can be used by the radiation oncologists and others to conduct research, measure quality outcomes and improve patient care. We have also been able to capitalize on the sale of our data to other related disciplines. These research and outcome studies often are presented at international conferences and published in trade journals. Through 2012, our radiation oncologists have published approximately 720 articles in peer reviewed journals and related periodicals.

Payer Contracting. In an effort to enhance and improve our relationships with managed care and commercial payers, we have added management resources with experience in payer contracting. As a result, we have been able to improve contract terms and increase payment rates in many cases. In addition, we have developed an episode of care or bundled payment agreement with Humana and are working to develop similar arrangements with other payors. We believe these innovative payment approaches will improve alignment and increase our business opportunities with these payers.

Educational Initiatives. In 1989, we founded The Radiation Therapy School for Radiation Therapy Technology, which is accredited by the Joint Review Committee on Education in Radiologic Technology. The school trains individuals to become radiation therapists. Upon graduation, students become eligible to take the national registry examination administered by the American Registry of Radiologic Technologists. Radiation therapists are responsible for administering treatments prescribed by radiation oncologists and monitoring patients while under treatment. Since opening in 1989, the school has produced 145 graduates, 71 of whom are currently employed by us.

Recognizing a growing need for individuals trained in treatment planning, we founded a Training Program for Medical Dosimetry in 2005. As of December 31, 2012, a total of 25 trainees/prospective students have completed or are in the process of completing the program in dosimetry.

In addition, we have an affiliated physics program with the University of Pennsylvania to provide internship training sites for their Masters and PhD programs in Medical Physics.

Privacy of Medical Information. We focus on being compliant with regulations under HIPAA, regarding privacy, security and transmission of health information. We have implemented such regulations into our existing systems, standards and policies to ensure compliance.

Compliance Program. We have a compliance program that is consistent with guidelines issued by the OIG of the DHHS. As part of this compliance program, we adopted a code of ethics and have a full-time compliance officer at the corporate level. Our program includes an anonymous hotline reporting system, compliance training programs, auditing and monitoring programs and a disciplinary system to enforce our code of ethics and other compliance policies. It also includes a process for screening all employees through applicable federal and state databases of sanctioned individuals. Auditing and monitoring activities include claims preparation and submission and also cover issues such as coding, billing, regulatory compliance and financial arrangements with physicians. These areas are also the focus of our specialized training programs.

As of December 31, 2012, we owned, operated and managed 121 freestanding and five hospital-based treatment centers in our 28 domestic local markets and our international markets of which:

Internally Developed. As of December 31, 2012, we operated 38 internally developed treatment centers located in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island. In 2009, we developed new treatment centers in Hammonton, New Jersey; Indio, California; Fort Myers, Florida; Southbridge, Massachusetts; Gilbert, Arizona; Providence, Rhode Island and Yucca Valley, California and in the first half of 2010, we opened de novo treatment centers in Pembroke Pines, Florida and Los Angeles, California. In August 2011 we completed a replacement de novo radiation treatment facility in Alabama. In August 2012 we completed a de novo radiation treatment facility in Argentina. Our team is experienced in the design and construction of radiation treatment centers, having developed 4 treatment centers in the past three years. Our newly-developed treatment centers typically achieve positive cash flow within six to fifteen months after opening. The following table sets forth the locations and other information regarding each of our internally developed radiation treatment centers in our local markets as of December 31, 2012:

Treatment Center		Year

Lee County—Florida
Broadway			1983
Cape Coral			1984
Lakes Park			1987
Bonita Springs			2002
Lehigh Acres			2003
Lee Cancer Center			2009
Charlotte/Desoto Counties—Florida
Port Charlotte			1986
Sarasota/Manatee Counties—Florida
Englewood			1992
Sarasota			1996
Venice			1998
Bradenton			2002
Lakewood Ranch			2008
Collier County—Florida
South Naples			1993
North Naples			1999
East Naples			2008
Northwest—Florida
Destin			2004
Crestview			2004
Miami-Dade County—Florida
Aventura			2007
Palm Beach County—Florida
West Palm Beach			2002
Northeast—Florida
Jacksonville			2008
Las Vegas, Nevada
Henderson*			2000
Fort Apache*			2008
Westchester/Bronx—New York
Bronx/Lebanon*			2009
South New Jersey
Hammonton			2009

Treatment Center		Year

Rhode Island
Woonsocket(1)			2004
South County(2)			2005
Providence(3)			2007
Providence(4)			2009
Central Arizona
Scottsdale			2007
Palm Springs, California
Palm Desert*			2005
Rancho Mirage*			2008
Yucca Valley*			2009
Indio*			2009
Central Massachusetts
Southbridge(5)*			2009
Los Angeles, California
El Segundo*			2010
Broward County—Florida
Pembroke Pines			2010
Southeastern Alabama
Andalusia			2011
International—Argentina
Argentina (1 location)			2012

Acquired Treatment Centers. As of December 31, 2012, we operated 83 acquired treatment centers (including two which were transitioned from a hospital-based to freestanding) located in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia, including 30 acquired treatment centers in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. Over the past three years, we have acquired 37 treatment centers of which two were acquired in 2010, 33 in 2011, two were acquired and two were transitioned from hospital-based to acquired freestanding in 2012. We plan to continue to enter new markets through the acquisition of established treatment centers from time to time. As part of our ongoing acquisition strategy, we continually evaluate potential acquisition opportunities.

The following table sets forth the locations and other information regarding each of the acquired radiation treatment centers in our local markets and international markets as of December 31, 2012:

Treatment Center		Year

Broward County—Florida
Plantation			1993
Deerfield Beach			1994
Coral Springs			1994
Tamarac			1999
Broward General Hospital**			2012
North Broward Hospital**			2012
Collier County—Florida
South Naples			2008
Northwest Florida
Fort Walton Beach			2001
Florida Keys
Key West			2003
Las Vegas, Nevada
Las Vegas (2 locations)*			2005
Westchester/Bronx—New York
Riverhill*			1998
Delmarva Peninsula
Berlin, Maryland			1998
Salisbury, Maryland			2007
Western North Carolina
Clyde*			2002
Brevard*			2002
Franklin*			2002
Marion*			2002
Rutherford*			2002
Park Ridge*			2003
Asheville*			2012
Central Kentucky
Danville			2003
Louisville(1)			2003
Frankfort			2003
Southeastern Alabama
Dothan			2003
South New Jersey
Woodbury			2004
Voorhees			2004
Willingboro			2004
Central Maryland
Martinsburg, West Virginia(2)*			2005
Greenbelt, Maryland			2005
Belcamp, Maryland			2005
Bel Air, Maryland			2006
Fairlea, West Virginia			2008
Princeton, West Virginia			2010
Central Arizona
Casa Grande			2007

Treatment Center		Year

Sun City (2 locations)			2008
Phoenix			2008
Central Massachusetts
Holyoke*			2005
Los Angeles, California
Santa Monica*			2006
Southeastern Michigan
Pontiac*			2006
Madison Heights*			2006
Clarkson*			2006
Macomb*			2006
Farmington Hills*			2006
Northern California
Redding (2 locations)(3)*			2007
Mt. Shasta(3)*			2008
Eastern North Carolina
Greenville*			2007
Goldsboro*			2011
Sampson*			2011
South Carolina
Myrtle Beach			2010
Argentina (23 locations)			2011
Costa Rica (2 locations)			2011
Dominican Republic (2 locations)			2011
El Salvador			2011
Guatemala			2011
Mexico			2011
Sarasota/Manatee Counties—Florida
Lakewood Ranch			2012

Hospital-Based and Other Group Treatment Centers. As of December 31, 2012, we operated four hospital-based treatment centers and one center with an outside group. We provide services at all of our hospital-based treatment centers pursuant to written agreements with the hospitals. We also manage certain of these treatment centers pursuant to an agreement with the hospital. A professional corporation owned by certain of our equityholders provides the radiation oncologists for the treatment centers in Mohawk Valley—New York. In connection with certain of our hospital-based treatment center services, we provide technical and administrative services. Professional services in North Carolina are provided by physicians employed by a professional corporation owned by certain of our officers, directors and equityholders. Professional services consist of services provided by radiation oncologists to patients. Technical services consist of the non-professional services provided by us in connection with

radiation treatments administered to patients. Administrative services consist of services provided by us to the hospital-based center. The contracts under which the hospital based treatment centers are provided service are generally three to seven years with terms for renewal. The following table sets forth the locations and other information regarding each of our hospital- based and other radiation treatment centers in our local markets as of December 31, 2012:

Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and Rhode Island Treatment Centers. In Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey and Rhode Island we employ or contract with radiation oncologists and other healthcare professionals. Substantially all of our Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, New Jersey, and Rhode Island radiation oncologists have employment agreements or other contractual arrangements with us. While we exercise legal control over radiation oncologists we employ, we do not exercise control over, or otherwise influence, their medical judgment or professional decisions. Such radiation oncologists typically receive a base salary, fringe benefits and may be eligible for an incentive performance bonus. In addition to compensation, we provide our radiation oncologists with uniform benefit plans, such as disability, retirement, life and group health insurance and medical malpractice insurance. The radiation oncologists are required to hold a valid license to practice medicine in the jurisdiction in which they practice and, with respect to inpatient or hospital services, to become a member of the medical staff at the contracting hospital with privileges in radiation oncology. We are responsible for billing patients, hospitals and third-party payers for services rendered by our radiation oncologists. Most of our employment agreements prohibit the physician from competing with us within a defined geographic area and prohibit solicitation of our radiation oncologists, other employees or patients for a period of one to two years after termination of employment.

California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina Treatment Centers. Many states, including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina prohibit us from employing radiation oncologists. As a result, we operate our treatment centers in such states pursuant to administrative services agreements between professional corporations and our wholly-owned subsidiaries. In the states of California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina, our treatment centers are operated as physician office practices. We typically provide technical services to these treatment centers in addition to our administrative services. For the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 approximately 22.1%, 18.0% and 19.4% of our net patient

service revenue, respectively, was generated by professional corporations with which we have administrative services agreements. The professional corporations with which we have administrative services agreements in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina are owned by certain of our directors, physicians and equityholders, who are licensed to practice medicine in the respective state.

Our administrative services agreements generally obligate us to provide certain treatment centers with equipment, staffing, accounting services, billing and collection services, management, technical and administrative personnel and assistance in managed care contracting. Our administrative services agreements provide for the professional corporations to pay us a monthly service fee, which represents the fair market value of our services. It also provides for the parties to meet annually to reevaluate the value of our services and establish the fair market value. In California and Nevada, we are paid a fee based upon a fixed percentage of global revenue. In Michigan, we are paid a fee based upon a fixed percentage of net income. In New York and North Carolina, we are paid a fixed fee per procedure. The terms of our administrative services agreements with professional corporations range from 20 to 25 years and typically renew automatically for additional five-year periods. Under related agreements in certain states, we have the right to designate purchases of shares held by the physician owners of the professional corporations to qualified individuals under certain circumstances.

Our administrative services agreements contain restrictive covenants that preclude the professional corporations from hiring another management services organization for some period after termination. The professional corporations are parties to employment agreements with the radiation oncologists. The terms of these employment agreements typically range from three to five years depending on the physician's experience.

Our radiation oncologists are primarily referred to patients by: primary care physicians, medical oncologists, surgical oncologists, urologists, pulmonologists, neurosurgeons and other physicians within the medical community. Our radiation oncologists are expected to actively develop their referral base by establishing strong clinical relationships with referring physicians. Our radiation oncologists develop these relationships by describing the variety and advanced nature of the therapies offered at our treatment centers, by providing seminars on advanced treatment procedures and by involving the referring physicians in those advanced treatment procedures. Patient referrals to our radiation oncologists also are influenced by managed care organizations with which we actively pursue contractual agreements.

In 2010, we implemented a physician liaison program to capture new referrals from physicians currently not referring patients to RTS or splitting referrals. Our physician liaisons act as intermediaries between our radiation oncologists and potential referring physicians. Liaisons utilize the marketing materials we have developed, which highlight the variety and advanced nature of the therapies at our treatment centers. Our physician liaison program has grown from three physician liaisons in 2010 to 19 as of December 31, 2012.

As of December 31, 2012, we employed approximately 3,170 employees, including approximately 725 employees in our international markets. As of December 31, 2012, we were affiliated with 121 radiation oncologists in the domestic U.S. that were employed or under contract with us or our affiliated professional corporations. We do not employ any radiation oncologists in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York or North Carolina due to the laws and regulations in effect in these states. None of our employees in our U.S. domestic markets are a party to a collective bargaining agreement and we consider our relationships with our employees to be good. Approximately

380 employees in our international markets are covered by a collective bargaining agreement with the Health Care Providers Union corresponding to the agreement N° 108/75. The agreement does not have a fixed term, although payment increase is negotiated every year by the labor union. There currently is a nationwide shortage of radiation oncologists and other medical support personnel, which makes recruiting and retaining these employees difficult. We provide competitive wages and benefits and offer our employees a professional work environment that we believe helps us recruit and retain the staff we need to operate and manage our treatment centers. In addition to our radiation oncologists, we currently employ in the domestic U.S., 106 urologists, 34 surgeons and surgical oncologists, 24 medical oncologists and five gynecological and other oncologists, three pathologists, a pulmonologist and three primary care physicians whose practices complement our business in eight markets in Florida as well as our Arizona, California, Nevada, New York, North Carolina, Maryland, Michigan and South Carolina local markets.

Our results of operations historically have fluctuated on a quarterly basis and can be expected to continue to fluctuate. Many of the patients of our Florida treatment centers are part-time residents in Florida during the winter months. Hence, these treatment centers have historically experienced higher utilization rates during the winter months than during the remainder of the year. In addition, volume is typically lower in the summer months due to traditional vacation periods. 31 of our 126 radiation treatment centers are located in Florida.

We are subject to claims and legal actions in the ordinary course of business. To cover these claims, we maintain professional malpractice liability insurance and general liability insurance in amounts we believe are sufficient for our operations. We maintain professional malpractice liability insurance that provides primary coverage on a claims-made basis per incident and in annual aggregate amounts. Our professional malpractice liability insurance coverage is provided by an insurance company owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders. The malpractice insurance provided by this insurance company varies in coverage limits for individual physicians. The insurance company also carries excess claims-made coverage through Lloyd's of London. In addition, we currently maintain multiple layers of umbrella coverage through our general liability insurance policies. We maintain Directors and Officers liability insurance.

The radiation therapy market is highly fragmented and our business is highly competitive. Competition may result from other radiation oncology practices, solo practitioners, companies in other healthcare industry segments, large physician group practices or radiation oncology physician practice management companies, hospitals and other operators of other radiation treatment centers, some of which may have greater financial and other resources than us. We believe our radiation treatment centers are distinguishable from those of many of our competitors because we offer patients a full spectrum of advanced radiation therapy options that are not otherwise available in certain geographies or offered by other providers, and which are administered by highly trained personnel and leading radiation oncologists.

We have not registered our service marks or any of our logos with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. However, some of our service marks and logos may be subject to other common law intellectual property rights. We do not hold any patents. Recently, we filed an application to own the rights to a copyright that protects the content of our Gamma Function software code and are awaiting a registration certificate.

To date, we have not relied heavily on patents or other intellectual property in operating our business. Nevertheless, some of the information technology purchased or used by us may be patented or subject to other intellectual property rights. As a result, we may be found to be, or actions may be brought against us alleging that we are, infringing on the trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of others, which could give rise to substantial claims against us. In the future, we may wish to obtain or develop trademarks, patents or other intellectual property. However, other practices and public entities, including universities, may have filed applications for (or have been issued) trademarks, patents or other intellectual property rights that may be the same as or similar to those developed or otherwise obtained by us or that we may need in the development of our own intellectual property. The scope and validity of such trademark, patent and other intellectual property rights, the extent to which we may wish or need to acquire such rights and the cost or availability of such rights are presently unknown. In addition, we cannot provide assurance that others will not obtain access to our intellectual property or independently develop the same or similar intellectual property to that developed or otherwise obtained by us.

The healthcare industry is highly regulated and the federal and state laws that affect our business are extensive and subject to frequent changes. Federal law and regulations are based primarily upon the Medicare and Medicaid programs, each of which is financed, at least in part, with federal money. State jurisdiction is based upon the state's authority to license certain categories of healthcare professionals and providers, the state's interest in regulating the quality of healthcare in the state, regardless of the source of payment, and state healthcare programs. The significant federal and state regulatory laws that could affect our ability to conduct our business include without limitation those regarding:

A violation of these laws could result in significant civil and criminal penalties, the refund of monies paid by government and/or private payers, exclusion of the physician, the practice or us from participation in Medicare and Medicaid programs and/or the loss of a physician's license to practice medicine. We exercise care in our efforts to structure our arrangements and our practices to comply with applicable federal and state laws. We have a Medicare Compliance Committee and a Corporate Compliance Program in place to review our practices and procedures. Although we believe we are in material compliance with all applicable laws, these laws are complex and a review of our practices by a court, or law enforcement or regulatory authority could result in an adverse determination that could harm our business. Furthermore, the laws applicable to us are subject to change, interpretation and amendment, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business. No assurance can be given that we will be able to comply with any future laws or regulations.

We estimate that approximately 48%, 48% and 45% of our net patient service revenue for 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively, consisted of reimbursements from Medicaid and Medicare government programs. In order to be certified to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs, each provider must meet applicable conditions of participation and regulations of the DHHS relating to, among other things, operating policies and procedures, maintenance of equipment, personnel, standards of medical care and compliance with applicable federal, state and local laws. Our radiation treatment centers are certified to participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Unless otherwise specified, the federal healthcare laws described in this section apply in any case in which we are providing an item or service that is reimbursable under Medicare or Medicaid. The principal federal laws that affect our business include those that prohibit the filing of false or improper claims with the Medicare or Medicaid programs, those that prohibit unlawful inducements for the referral or generation of business reimbursable under Medicare or Medicaid and those that prohibit the provision of certain services by an entity that has a financial relationship with the referring physician.

False and Other Improper Claims. Under the federal False Claims Act, the government may fine us if we knowingly submit, or participate in submitting, any claims for payment that are false or fraudulent, or that contain false or misleading information, or if we knowingly conceal or knowingly and improperly avoid or decrease an obligation to pay or transmit money or property to the government. An "obligation" includes an established duty arising from an express or implied contractual arrangement, from statute or regulation, or from the retention of an overpayment. Knowingly making or using a false record or statement to receive payment from the federal government or to improperly retain payment is also a violation. The False Claims Act does not require proof of specific intent to defraud: a provider can be found liable for submitting false claims with actual knowledge or with reckless disregard or deliberate ignorance of such falseness.

A False Claims lawsuit may be brought by the government or by a private individual by means of a "qui tam" action. A whistleblower shares in the proceeds of the case, typically being awarded between 15 and 25 percent of the proceeds. Such lawsuits have increased significantly in recent years. In addition, the federal government has engaged a number of nongovernmental-audit organizations to assist it in tracking and recovering false claims for healthcare services.

If we were ever found to have violated the False Claims Act, we would likely be required to make significant payments to the government (including treble damages and per claim penalties in addition to the reimbursements previously collected) and could be excluded from participating in Medicare, Medicaid and other government healthcare programs. Many states have similar false claims statutes. Healthcare fraud is a priority of the United States Department of Justice, the OIG and the Federal Bureau of Investigation which continue to devote a significant amount of resources to investigating healthcare fraud. State Medicaid agencies also have similar fraud and abuse authority, and many states have enacted laws similar to the federal False Claims Act.

While the criminal statutes generally are reserved for instances evidencing fraudulent intent, the civil and administrative penalty statutes are applied to an increasingly broad range of circumstances. Examples of activities giving rise to false claims liability include, without limitation, billing for services not rendered, misrepresenting services rendered (i.e., miscoding) and application for duplicate reimbursement. Additionally, the federal government has taken the position that claiming reimbursement for unnecessary or substandard services violates these statutes if the claimant should have known that the services were unnecessary or substandard. An entity may also be subjected to False Claims Act liability for violations of the federal anti-kickback statute and the Stark Law.

Criminal penalties also are available in the case of claims filed with private insurers if the federal government shows that the claims constitute mail fraud or wire fraud or violate a number of federal criminal healthcare fraud statutes.

We believe our billing and documentation practices comply with applicable laws and regulations in all material respects. We submit thousands of reimbursement claims to Medicare and Medicaid each year, however, and therefore can provide no assurance that our submissions are free from errors. Although we monitor our billing practices for compliance with applicable laws, such laws are very complex and the regulations and guidance interpreting such laws are subject to frequent changes and differing interpretations.

HIPAA Criminal Penalties. HIPAA imposes criminal penalties for fraud against any healthcare benefit program and for obtaining money or property from a healthcare benefit program through false pretenses. HIPAA also provides for broad prosecutorial subpoena authority and authorizes certain property forfeiture upon conviction of a federal healthcare offense. Significantly, the HIPAA provisions apply not only to federal programs, but also to private health benefit programs. HIPAA also broadened the authority of the OIG to exclude participants from federal healthcare programs. If the government were to seek any substantial penalties against us pursuant to these provisions, such an action could have a material adverse effect on us.

HIPAA Civil Penalties. HIPAA broadened the scope of certain fraud and abuse laws by adding several civil statutes that apply to all healthcare services, whether or not they are reimbursed under a federal healthcare program. HIPAA established civil monetary penalties for certain conduct, including upcoding and billing for medically unnecessary goods or services.

HIPAA Administrative Simplifications. The federal regulations issued under HIPAA contain provisions that:

If we fail to comply with HIPAA, we may be subject to civil monetary penalties up to $50,000 per violation, not to exceed $1.5 million per calendar year and, in certain circumstances, criminal penalties with fines up to $250,000 per violation and/or imprisonment. State attorneys general can bring a civil action to enjoin a HIPAA violation or to obtain statutory damages up to $25,000 per violation on behalf of residents of his or her state.

The DHHS has discretion in setting the amount of a civil monetary penalty, and may waive it entirely for violations due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect if the payment would be excessive relative to the violation. The regulations also provide for an affirmative defense if a covered entity can show that the violation was not due to willful neglect and was corrected within 30 days or an additional period deemed appropriate by the DHHS. Reasonable cause means circumstances that would make it unreasonable for the covered entity, despite the exercise of ordinary business care and prudence, to comply. Willful neglect is defined as conscious, intentional failure or reckless indifference to the obligation to comply. The factors to be considered in determining the amount of the penalty include

the nature and circumstances of the violation, the degree of culpability, the history of other violations, and the extent of the resulting harm.

The HIPAA regulations related to privacy establish comprehensive federal standards relating to the use and disclosure of protected health information. The privacy regulations establish limits on the use and disclosure of protected health information, provide for patients' rights, including rights to access, request amendment of, and receive an accounting of certain disclosures of protected health information, and require certain safeguards to protect protected health information. In general, the privacy regulations do not supersede state laws that are more stringent or grant greater privacy rights to individuals. We believe our operations are in material compliance with the privacy regulations, but there can be no assurance that the federal government would agree.

Effective September 23, 2009, HIPAA requires that individuals be notified without unreasonable delay and within 60 days of their protected health information having been inappropriately accessed, acquired or disclosed. Depending on the number of individuals affected by such a breach, notification may be required to the media and federal government as well. The regulations prescribe the method and form of the required notices. Civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation with a maximum of $1.5 million per year may attach to failures to notify.

The HIPAA security regulations establish detailed requirements for safeguarding protected health information that is electronically transmitted or electronically stored. Some of the security regulations are technical in nature, while others may be addressed through policies and procedures. We believe our operations are in material compliance with the security regulations, but there can be no assurance that the federal government would agree.

The HIPAA transaction standards regulations are intended to simplify the electronic claims process and other healthcare transactions by encouraging electronic transmission rather than paper submission. These regulations provide for uniform standards for data reporting, formatting and coding that we must use in certain transactions with health plans. We believe our operations comply with these standards, but there can be no assurance that the federal government would agree.

Although we believe that we are in material compliance with these HIPAA regulations with which compliance is currently required, we cannot guarantee that the federal government would agree. Furthermore, additional changes to the HIPAA regulations are expected to be forthcoming in the next few years, which will require additional efforts to ensure compliance.

Anti-Kickback Law. Federal law commonly known as the "Anti-kickback Statute" prohibits the knowing and willful offer, solicitation, payment or receipt of anything of value (direct or indirect, overt or covert, in cash or in kind) which is intended to induce:

The Anti-kickback Statute has been broadly interpreted by a number of courts to prohibit remuneration which is offered or paid for otherwise legitimate purposes if the circumstances show that one purpose of the arrangement is to induce referrals. Even bona fide investment interests in a healthcare provider may be questioned under the Anti-kickback Statute if the government concludes that the opportunity to invest was offered as an inducement for referrals. The penalties for violations of this law include criminal sanctions including fines and/or imprisonment and exclusion from federal healthcare programs.

Our compensation and other financial arrangements, including leases, with physicians implicate the Anti-kickback Statute. The federal government has published regulations that provide "safe-harbors" that protect certain arrangements under the Anti-kickback Statute so long as certain requirements are met. We believe that our employment and leasing arrangements comply with applicable safe harbors. Failure to meet the requirements of a safe harbor, however, does not necessarily mean a transaction violates the Anti-kickback Statute. There are several aspects of our relationships with physicians to which the Anti-kickback Statute may be relevant. We claim reimbursement from Medicare or Medicaid for services that are ordered, in some cases, by our radiation oncologists who hold shares of our common stock. Although neither the existing nor potential investments in us by physicians qualify for protection under the safe harbor regulations, we do not believe that these activities fall within the type of activities the Anti-kickback Statute was intended to prohibit. We also claim reimbursement from Medicare and Medicaid for services referred from other healthcare providers with whom we have financial arrangements, including compensation for employment and professional services. While we believe that these arrangements generally fall within applicable safe harbors or otherwise do not violate the law, there can be no assurance that the government will agree, in which event we could be harmed.

We believe our operations are in material compliance with applicable Medicare and Medicaid and fraud and abuse laws and seek to structure arrangements to comply with applicable safe harbors where reasonably possible. There is a risk however, that the federal government might investigate such arrangements and conclude they violate the Anti-kickback Statute. Violations of the Anti-kickback Statute also subjects an entity to liability under the False Claims Act, including via "qui tam" action. If our arrangements were found to be illegal, we, the physician groups and/or the individual physicians would be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including exclusion from the participation in government reimbursement programs, and our arrangements would not be legally enforceable, which could materially adversely affect us.

Additionally, the OIG issues advisory opinions that provide advice on whether proposed business arrangements violate the anti-kickback law. In Advisory Opinion 98-4, the OIG addressed physician practice management arrangements. In Advisory Opinion 98-4, the OIG found that administrative services fees based on a percentage of practice revenue may violate the Anti-kickback Statute under certain circumstances. While we believe that the fees we charge for our services under the administrative services agreements are commensurate with the fair market value of the services and our arrangements are in material compliance with applicable law and regulations, we cannot guarantee that the OIG would agree. Any such adverse finding could have a material adverse impact on us.

Federal Self-Referral Law (The Stark Law). We are also subject to federal and state statutes banning payments and assigning penalties for referrals by physicians to healthcare providers with whom the physicians (or close family members) have a financial relationship. The Stark Law prohibits a physician from referring a patient to a healthcare provider for certain designated health services reimbursable by Medicare if the physician (or close family members) has a financial relationship with that provider, including an investment interest, a loan or debt relationship or a compensation relationship. The designated health services covered by the law include radiology services, infusion therapy, radiation therapy and supplies, clinical laboratory, diagnostic imaging, outpatient prescription drugs and hospital services, among others. In addition to the conduct directly prohibited by the law, the statute also prohibits "circumvention schemes", that are designed to obtain referrals indirectly that cannot be made directly. The regulatory framework of the Stark Law is to first prohibit all referrals from physicians to entities for Medicare DHS and then to except certain types of arrangements from that broad general prohibition.

Violation of these laws and regulations may result in prohibition of payment for services rendered, a refund of any Medicare or Medicaid payments for services that resulted from an unlawful referral, $15,000 civil monetary penalties for specified infractions, $100,000 for a circumvention scheme, criminal penalties, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and potential false claims liability,

including via "qui tam" action, of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000, plus three times the amount of damages that the government sustains because of an improperly submitted claim. The repayment provisions in Stark are not dependent on the parties having an improper intent; rather, Stark is a strict liability statute and any violation is subject to repayment of all "tainted" referrals.

Our compensation and other financial arrangements, including leases, with physicians implicate the Stark Law. The Stark Law, however, contains exceptions applicable to our operations. We rely on exceptions covering employees, leases, and in-office ancillary services, as well as the "group practice" definition that allows for certain compensation and profit sharing methodologies. Additionally, the definition of "referral" under the Stark Law excludes referrals of radiation oncologists for radiation therapy if (1) the request is part of a consultation initiated by another physician; and (2) the tests or services are furnished by or under the supervision of the radiation oncologist. We believe the services rendered by our radiation oncologists will comply with this exception to the definition of referral.

Some physicians who are not radiation oncologists are employed by companies owned by us or by professional corporations owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders with which we have administrative services agreements. To the extent these professional corporations employ such physicians, and they are deemed to have made referrals for radiation therapy, their referrals will be permissible under the Stark Law if they meet the employment exception, which requires, among other things, that the compensation be consistent with the fair market value of the services provided and that it not take into account (directly or indirectly) the volume or value of any referrals by the referring physician. Another Stark exception applicable to our financial relationships with physicians who are not radiation oncologists is the in-office ancillary services exception and accompanying group practice definition which permits profit distributions to physicians within a qualifying group practice structure. The Stark Law imposes detailed requirements in order to qualify for the in-office ancillary services exception, all of which are highly technical and many of which have to date not been subject to any judicial review or other agency interpretation. In the event that the Stark Law were to be amended to modify or otherwise limit the in-office ancillary services exception, this could have a material adverse impact on our business.

In addition, the Health Care Reform Act requires referring physicians under Stark to inform patients that they may obtain certain imaging services (e.g., magnetic resonance imaging ("MRI"), CT and PET) or other designated health services as specified by the Secretary of the DHHS from a provider other than that physician, his or her group practice, or another physician in his or her group practice. To date, DHHS has not included radiation oncology as a service subject to this requirement.

We believe that our current operations comply in all material respects with the Stark Law, due to, among other things, various exceptions therein and implementing regulations that exempt either the referral or the financial relationship involved. Nevertheless, to the extent physicians affiliated with us make referrals to us and a financial relationship exists between the referring physicians and us, the government might take the position that the arrangement does not comply with the Stark Law. Any such finding could have a material adverse impact on us.

State Anti-Kickback Laws. Many states in which we operate have laws that prohibit the payment of kickbacks in return for the referral of patients. Some of these laws apply only to services reimbursable under the state Medicaid program. However, a number of these laws apply to all healthcare services in the state, regardless of the source of payment for the service. Although we believe that these laws prohibit payments to referral sources only where a principal purpose for the payment is for the referral, the laws in most states regarding kickbacks have been subjected to limited judicial and regulatory interpretation and, therefore, no assurances can be given that our activities will be found to be in compliance. Noncompliance with such laws could have a material adverse effect upon us and subject us and the physicians involved to penalties and sanctions.

State Self-Referral Laws. A number of states in which we operate, such as Florida, have enacted self-referral laws that are similar in purpose to the Stark Law. However, each state law is unique. The state laws and regulations vary significantly from state to state, are often vague and, in many cases, have not been widely interpreted by courts or regulatory agencies. State statutes and regulations affecting the referral of patients to healthcare providers range from statutes and regulations that are substantially the same as the federal laws and safe harbor regulations to a simple requirement that physicians or other healthcare professionals disclose to patients any financial relationship the physicians or healthcare professionals have with a healthcare provider that is being recommended to the patients. Some states only prohibit referrals where the physician's financial relationship with a healthcare provider is based upon an investment interest. Other state laws apply only to a limited number of designated health services. For example, in Maryland (where we operate 6 facilities), state law prohibits physicians other than radiologists or radiation oncologists from being part of a group practice or otherwise benefitting from MRI, CT or radiation oncology services.

These statutes and regulations generally apply to services reimbursed by both governmental and private payers. Violations of these laws may result in prohibition of payment for services rendered, refund of any monies received pursuant to a prohibited referral, loss of licenses as well as fines and criminal penalties.

We believe that we are in compliance with the self-referral law of each state in which we have a financial relationship with a physician. However, we cannot guarantee that the government would agree, and adverse judicial or administrative interpretations of any of these laws could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition. In addition, expansion of our operations into new jurisdictions, or new interpretations of laws in existing jurisdictions, could require structural and organizational modifications of our relationships with physicians to comply with that jurisdiction's laws. Such structural and organizational modifications could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

Fee-Splitting Laws. Many states in which we operate prohibit the splitting or sharing of fees between physicians and referral sources and/or between physicians and non-physicians. These laws vary from state to state and are enforced by courts and regulatory agencies, each with broad discretion. Some states have interpreted management agreements between entities and physicians as unlawful fee-splitting. In most cases, it is not considered to be fee-splitting when the payment made by the physician is reasonable, fair market value reimbursement for services rendered on the physician's behalf.

In certain states, we receive fees from professional corporations owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders under administrative services agreements. We believe we structure these fee provisions to comply with applicable state laws relating to fee-splitting. However, there can be no certainty that, if challenged, either we or the professional corporations will be found to be in compliance with each state's fee-splitting laws, and, a successful challenge could have a material adverse effect upon us.

In certain states we operate integrated cancer care practices and share ancillary profits within the practice. We believe we have structured these financial arrangements to comply with state fee-splitting laws. However, there can be no certainty that, if challenged, we will be found to be in compliance with each state's fee-splitting provisions and a successful challenge could have a material adverse effect on us.

We believe our arrangements with physicians comply in all material respects with the fee-splitting laws of the states in which we operate. Nevertheless, it is possible regulatory authorities or other parties could claim we are engaged in fee-splitting. If such a claim were successfully asserted in any jurisdiction, our radiation oncologists and other physicians could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, professional discipline and we could be required to restructure or terminate our contractual

and other arrangements. Any restructuring of our contractual and other arrangements with physician practices could result in lower revenue from such practices, increased expenses in the operation of such practices and reduced input into the business decisions of such practices. Termination of such contracts would result in loss of revenue. In addition, expansion of our operations to other states with fee-splitting prohibitions may require structural and organizational modification to the form of relationships that we currently have with physicians, affiliated practices and hospitals. Any modifications could result in less profitable relationships with physicians, affiliated practices and hospitals, less influence over the business decisions of physicians and affiliated practices and failure to achieve our growth objectives.

Corporate Practice of Medicine. We are not licensed to practice medicine. The practice of medicine is conducted solely by our licensed radiation oncologists and other licensed physicians. The manner in which licensed physicians can be organized to perform and bill for medical services is governed by the laws of the state in which medical services are provided and by the medical boards or other entities authorized by such states to oversee the practice of medicine. Most states prohibit any person or entity other than a licensed professional from holding him, her or itself out as a provider of diagnoses, treatment or care of patients. Many states extend this prohibition to bar companies not wholly-owned by licensed physicians from employing physicians, a practice commonly referred to as the "Corporate Practice of Medicine", in order to maintain physician independence and clinical judgment.

Business corporations are generally not permitted under certain state laws to exercise control over the medical judgments or decisions of physicians, or engage in certain practices such as fee-splitting with physicians. Particularly in states where we are not permitted to own a medical practice, we perform only non-medical and administrative and support services, do not represent to the public or clients that we offer professional medical services and do not exercise influence or control over the practice of medicine.

Corporate Practice of Medicine laws vary widely by state regarding the extent to which a licensed physician can affiliate with corporate entities for the delivery of medical services. In Florida, it is not uncommon for business corporations to own medical practices. New York, by contrast, prohibits physicians from sharing revenue received in connection with the furnishing of medical care, other than with a partner, employee or associate in a professional corporation, subcontractor or physician consultant relationship. We have developed arrangements which we believe are in compliance with the Corporate Practice of Medicine laws in the states in which we operate.

We believe our operations and contractual arrangements as currently conducted are in material compliance with existing applicable laws. However, we cannot assure you that we will be successful if our existing organization and our contractual arrangements with the professional corporations are challenged as constituting the unlicensed practice of medicine. In addition, we might not be able to enforce certain of our arrangements, including non-competition agreements and transition and stock pledge agreements. While the precise penalties for violation of state laws relating to the corporate practice of medicine vary from state to state, violations could lead to fines, injunctive relief dissolving a corporate offender or criminal felony charges. There can be no assurance that review of our business and the professional corporations by courts or regulatory authorities will not result in a determination that could adversely affect their operations or that the healthcare regulatory environment will not change so as to restrict existing operations or their expansion. In the event of action by any regulatory authority limiting or prohibiting us or any affiliate from carrying on our business or from expanding our operations and our affiliates to certain jurisdictions, we may be required to implement structural and organizational modifications, which could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business.

Antitrust Laws. In connection with the Corporate Practice of Medicine laws referred to above, certain of the physician practices with which we are affiliated are necessarily organized as separate legal entities. As such, the physician practice entities may be deemed to be persons separate both from us

and from each other under the antitrust laws and, accordingly, subject to a wide range of laws that prohibit anticompetitive conduct among separate legal entities. These laws may limit our ability to enter into agreements with separate practices that compete with one another. In addition, where we also are seeking to acquire or affiliate with established and reputable practices in our target geographic markets, any market concentration could lead to antitrust claims.

We believe we are in material compliance with federal and state antitrust laws and intend to comply with any state and federal laws that may affect the development of our business. There can be no assurance, however, that a review of our business by courts or regulatory authorities would not adversely affect our operations and the operations of our affiliated physician practice entities.

State Licensing. As a provider of radiation therapy services in the states in which we operate, we must maintain current occupational and use licenses for our treatment centers as healthcare facilities and machine registrations for our linear accelerators and simulators. Additionally, we must maintain radioactive material licenses for each of our treatment centers which utilize radioactive sources. We believe that we possess or have applied for all requisite state and local licenses and are in material compliance with all state and local licensing requirements.

Certificate of Need. Many states have enacted certificate of need laws, including, but not limited to, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina and West Virginia, which require prior approval for a number of actions, including for the purchase, construction, acquisition, renovation or expansion of healthcare facilities and treatment centers, to make certain capital expenditures or to make changes in services or bed capacity. In deciding whether to approve certain requests, these states consider the need for additional or expanded healthcare facilities or services. The certificate of need program is intended to prevent unnecessary duplication of services and can be a competitive process whereby only one proposal among competing applicants who wish to provide a particular health service is chosen or a proposal by one applicant is challenged by another provider who may prevail in getting the state to deny the addition of the service.

In certain states these certificate of need statutes and regulations apply to our related physician corporations and in others it applies to hospitals where we have management agreements or joint venture relationships.

We believe that we have applied for all requisite state certificate of need approvals or notified state authorities as required by statute and are in material compliance with state requirements. There can be no assurance, however, that a review of our business or proposed new practices by regulatory authorities would not limit our growth or otherwise adversely affect the operations of us and our affiliated physician practice entities.

Hazardous Materials. We are subject to various federal, state and local laws and regulations governing the use, discharge and disposal of hazardous materials, including medical waste products. We believe that all of our treatment centers comply with these laws and regulations in all material respects and we do not anticipate that any of these laws will have a material adverse effect on our operations.

Although our linear accelerators and certain other equipment do not use radioactive or other hazardous materials, our treatment centers do provide specialized treatment involving the implantation of radioactive material in the prostate and other organs. The radioactive sources generally are obtained from, and returned to, the suppliers, which have the ultimate responsibility for their proper disposal. We, however, remain subject to state and federal laws regulating the protection of employees who may be exposed to hazardous material and the proper handling, storage and disposal of that material.

We provide a full range of both professional and technical services. Those services include the initial consultation, clinical treatment planning, simulation, medical radiation physics, dosimetry, treatment devices, special services and clinical treatment management procedures.

The initial consultation is charged as a professional fee for evaluation of the patient prior to the decision to treat the patient with radiation therapy. The clinical treatment planning also is reimbursed as a technical and professional component. Simulation of the patient prior to treatment involves both a technical and a professional component, as the treatment plan is verified with the use of a simulator accompanied by the physician's approval of the plan. The medical radiation physics, dosimetry, treatment devices and special services also include both professional and technical components. The basic dosimetry calculation is accomplished, treatment devices are specified and approved, and the physicist consults with the radiation oncologist, all as professional and technical components of the charge. Special blocks, wedges, shields, or casts are fabricated, all as a technical and professional component.

The delivery of the radiation treatment from the linear accelerator is a technical charge. The clinical treatment administrative services fee is the professional fee charged weekly for the physician's management of the patient's treatment. Global fees containing both professional and technical components also are charged for specialized treatment such as hyperthermia, clinical intracavitary hyperthermia, clinical brachytherapy, interstitial radioelement applications, and remote after-loading of radioactive sources.

Coding and billing for radiation therapy is complex. We maintain a staff of certified coding professionals responsible for interpreting the services documented on the patients' charts to determine the appropriate coding of services for billing of third-party payers. This staff provides coding and billing services for all of our treatment centers except for four treatment centers in New York. In addition, we do not provide coding and billing services to hospitals where we are providing only the professional component of radiation treatment services. We provide training for our coding staff and believe that our coding and billing expertise result in appropriate and timely reimbursement. Given the complexity of the regulations and guidance governing coding and billing, we cannot guarantee that the government will not challenge any of our practices. Any such challenge could have a material adverse effect on us.

We derived approximately 48%, 48% and 45% of our net patient service revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively, from payments made by government sponsored healthcare programs, principally Medicare. These programs are subject to substantial regulation by the federal and state governments. Any change in payment regulations, policies, practices, interpretations or statutes that place limitations on reimbursement amounts, or changes in reimbursement coding, or practices could materially and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

In recent years, the federal government has sought to constrain the growth of spending in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Through the Medicare program, the federal government has implemented a resource-based relative value scale ("RBRVS") payment methodology for physician services. RBRVS is a fee schedule that, except for certain geographical and other adjustments, pays similarly situated physicians the same amount for the same services. The RBRVS is adjusted each year and is subject to increases or decreases at the discretion of Congress. Changes in the RBRVS may result in reductions in payment rates for procedures provided by the Company. RBRVS-type payment systems also have been adopted by certain private third-party payers and may become a predominant payment methodology. Broader implementation of such programs could reduce payments by private

third-party payers and could indirectly reduce our operating margins to the extent that the cost of providing management services related to such procedures could not be proportionately reduced. To the extent our costs increase, we may not be able to recover such cost increases from government reimbursement programs. In addition, because of cost containment measures and market changes in non-governmental insurance plans, we may not be able to shift cost increases to non-governmental payers. Changes in the RBRVS could result in a reduction from historical levels in per patient Medicare revenue received by us; however, we do not believe such reductions would, if implemented, result in a material adverse effect on us.

In addition to current governmental regulation, both federal and state governments periodically propose legislation for comprehensive reforms affecting the payment for and availability of healthcare services. Aspects of certain of such healthcare proposals, such as reductions in Medicare and Medicaid payments, if adopted, could adversely affect us. Other aspects of such proposals, such as universal health insurance coverage and coverage of certain previously uncovered services, could have a positive impact on our business. On March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the corresponding reconciliation bill. President Obama signed the larger comprehensive bill into law on March 23, 2010 and the reconciliation bill on March 30, 2010. The comprehensive $940 billion dollar overhaul is expected to extend coverage to approximately 32 million previously uninsured Americans. We anticipate that the Health Care Reform Act will significantly affect how the healthcare industry operates in relation to Medicare, Medicaid and the insurance industry. The Health Care Reform Act contains a number of provisions, including those governing fraud and abuse, enrollment in federal health care programs, and reimbursement changes, which will impact existing government health care programs and will result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program. It is not possible at this time to predict what, if any, additional reforms will be adopted by Congress or state legislatures, or when such reforms would be adopted and implemented. As healthcare reform progresses and the regulatory environment accommodates reform, it is likely that changes in state and federal regulations will necessitate modifications to our agreements and operations. While we believe we will be able to restructure in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, we cannot assure that such restructuring in all cases will be possible or profitable.

Although governmental payment reductions have not materially affected us in the past, it is possible that such changes implemented in connection with the Health Care Reform Act and any future changes could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, Medicare, Medicaid and other government sponsored healthcare programs are increasingly shifting to some form of managed care. Additionally, funds received under all healthcare reimbursement programs are subject to audit with respect to the proper billing for physician services. Retroactive adjustments of revenue from these programs could occur. We expect that there will continue to be proposals to reduce or limit Medicare and Medicaid payment for services.

Rates paid by private third-party payers, including those that provide Medicare supplemental insurance, are based on established physician, clinic and hospital charges and are generally higher than Medicare payment rates. Changes in the mix of our patients between non-governmental payers and government sponsored healthcare programs, and among different types of non-government payer sources, could have a material adverse effect on us.

Payers periodically reevaluate the services they cover. In some cases, government payers such as Medicare and Medicaid also may seek to recoup payments previously made for services determined not to be covered. Any such action by payers would have an adverse effect on our revenue and earnings.

Due to the uncertain nature of coding for radiation therapy services, we could be required to change coding practices or repay amounts paid for incorrect practices either of which could have a materially adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition.

In addition, we are subject to licensing and regulation under federal, state and local laws relating to the collecting, storing, handling and disposal of infectious and hazardous waste and radioactive materials as well as the safety and health of laboratory employees. We believe our operations are in material compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations relating to the collection, storage, handling, treatment and disposal of all infectious and hazardous waste and radioactive materials. Nevertheless, there can be no assurance that our current or past operations would be deemed to be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and any noncompliance could result in a material adverse effect on us. We utilize licensed vendors for the disposal of such specimen and waste.

In addition to our comprehensive regulation of safety in the workplace, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration has established extensive requirements relating to workplace safety for healthcare employees, whose workers may be exposed to blood-borne pathogens, such as HIV and the hepatitis B virus. These regulations require work practice controls, protective clothing and equipment, training, medical follow-up, vaccinations and other measures designed to minimize exposure to, and transmission of, blood-borne pathogens.

National healthcare reform remains a focus at the federal level. On March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the corresponding reconciliation bill. President Obama signed the larger comprehensive bill into law on March 23, 2010 and the reconciliation bill on March 30, 2010. The comprehensive $940 billion dollar overhaul is expected to extend coverage to approximately 32 million previously uninsured Americans.

A significant portion of our patient volume is derived from government healthcare programs, principally Medicare, which are highly regulated and subject to frequent and substantial changes. We anticipate the Health Care Reform Act will significantly affect how the healthcare industry operates in relation to Medicare, Medicaid and the insurance industry. The Health Care Reform Act contains a number of provisions, including those governing fraud and abuse, enrollment in federal healthcare programs, and reimbursement changes, which will impact existing government healthcare programs and will result in the development of new programs, including Medicare payment for performance initiatives and improvements to the physician quality reporting system and feedback program. We can give no assurance that the Health Care Reform Act will not adversely affect our business and financial results, and we cannot predict how future federal or state legislative or administrative changes relating to healthcare reform would affect our business.

In addition, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction ("JSC") was created under the Budget Control Act of 2011 and signed into law on August 2, 2011. Under the law, unless the JSC could achieve $1.2 trillion in savings, an across-the-board sequestration would occur on January 2, 2013, and each subsequent year through 2021, to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings. On November 21, 2011, the JSC released a statement indicating the committee would be unable to reach agreement, thereby clearing the way for the sequestration process. Unless Congress acts to reverse the cuts, Medicare providers would be cut under the sequestration process by 2 percent each year relative to baseline spending through 2021, which could have an adverse impact on our business. On January 2, 2013, the President signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act, which extended the sequestration order required under the Budget Control Act until March 1, 2013. On March 1, 2013, President Obama issued the

required sequestration order and, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 906, the 2 percent Medicare sequester is scheduled to take effect for payments starting on April 1, 2013.

We are involved in certain legal actions and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business and are generally covered by insurance. It is the opinion of management, based on advice of legal counsel, that such litigation and claims will be resolved without material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

As a result of the Existing Notes exchange offer, we became subject to the informational requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, (the "Exchange Act") and, in accordance therewith, file reports and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). Such reports and other information can be inspected and copied at the Public Reference Room of the SEC located at Room 1580, 100 F Street, N.E., Washington D.C. 20549. Copies of such materials can be obtained from the Public Reference Room of the SEC at prescribed rates. You can call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 to obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room. Such materials may also be accessed electronically by means of the SEC's home page on the Internet (http://www.sec.gov).

Our corporate website is www.rtsx.com and we make available copies of our filings under the Exchange Act, including Annual Reports on Form 10-K,, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q , Current Reports on Form 8-K and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act on our website, free of charge, under the heading "SEC Filings", as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is filed or furnished to the SEC. The information contained on the website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and is not incorporated into this Annual Report on Form 10-K by reference.

You should carefully consider the risk factors set forth below as well as the other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and the related notes, in evaluating our company and our business. The risks described below are not the only risks facing us. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or those we currently view to be immaterial may also materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. Any of the following risks could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In such a case, you may lose all or part of your original investment.

We depend on payments from government Medicare and, to a lesser extent, Medicaid programs for a significant amount of our revenue. Our business could be materially harmed by any changes that result in reimbursement reductions.

Our payer mix is concentrated with Medicare patients due to the high proportion of cancer patients over the age of 65. We estimate that approximately 48%, 48% and 45% of our net patient service revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively, consisted of payments from Medicare and Medicaid. Only a small percentage of that revenue resulted from Medicaid payment. These government programs generally reimburse us on a fee-for-service basis based on predetermined government reimbursement rate schedules. As a result of these reimbursement schedules, we are limited in the amount we can record as revenue for our services from these government programs. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services ("CMS") can change these schedules and therefore the prices that the agency pays for these services. In addition, if our operating costs increase, we will not be able to recover these costs from government payers. As a result, our financial condition and results of operations may be adversely affected by changes in reimbursement for Medicare reimbursement. Various state Medicaid programs also have recently reduced Medicaid payments to providers based on state budget reductions. Although Medicaid reimbursement encompasses only a small portion of our business, there can be no certainty as to whether Medicaid reimbursement will increase or decrease in the future and what affect, if any, this will have on our business.

In the final Medicare 2013 Physician Fee Schedule, CMS reduced payments for radiation oncology by 7 percent. This reduction relates to (1) the fourth year of the four-year transition to the utilization of new Physician Practice Information Survey (PPIS) data, (2) a change in equipment interest rate assumptions, (3) budget neutrality effects of a proposal to create a new discharge care management code, (4) input changes for certain radiation therapy procedures, and (5) certain other revised radiation oncology codes. The largest of these changes (accounting for 4 percent of the gross reduction) reflects the transition of the final 25 percent of PPIS data used in the Practice Expense Relative Value Unit (PERVU) methodology. The change in the CMS interest rate policy (accounting for 3 percent of the gross reduction) reduces interest rate assumptions in the CMS database from 11 percent to a sliding scale of 5.5 percent to 8 percent. CMS also is finalizing its proposal to create a HCPCS G-code to describe transition care management from a hospital or other institutional stay to a primary physician in the community (accounting for 1 percent of the gross reduction). While this policy benefits primary care, non-primary care physicians are impacted due to the budget-neutrality of the PFS. The rule also makes adjustments (accounting for 1 percent of the gross reduction) due to the use of new time of care assumptions for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Although the reductions in time of care assumptions alone would have resulted in a gross 7 percent reduction to radiation oncology as we identified in the proposed rule, CMS in its final rule included updated cost data submitted by the radiation oncology community for code inputs which reversed the vast majority of the reduction resulting from the new time of care assumptions. Total gross

reductions in the final rule are offset by a 2 percent increase due to certain other revised radiation oncology codes, which results in a total net reduction to radiation oncology of 7 percent.

Medicare reimbursement rates for all procedures under Medicare also are determined by a formula which takes into account a conversion factor ("CF") which is updated on an annual basis based on the sustainable growth rate ("SGR"). The CF was scheduled to decrease 24.9% as of January 1, 2011, but Congress delayed the scheduled cut until the end of 2011. The final Medicare 2012 Physician Fee Schedule, released by CMS on November 1, 2011, would have resulted in a reimbursement decrease of 27.4% as of January 1, 2012. However, Congress again delayed the implementation of this payment cut, first through February 29, 2012 under the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, then through the end of 2012 under the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, and yet again through the end of 2013 under the American Taxpayer Relief Act. If future reductions are not suspended, and if a permanent "doc fix" is not signed into law, the currently scheduled SGR reimbursement decrease (estimated at approximately 25%) will take effect on January 1, 2014.

In addition, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction ("JSC") was created under the Budget Control Act of 2011 and signed into law on August 2, 2011. Under the law, unless the JSC could achieve $1.2 trillion in savings, an across-the-board sequestration would occur on January 2, 2013, and each subsequent year through 2021, to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings. On November 21, 2011, the JSC released a statement indicating the committee would be unable to reach agreement, thereby clearing the way for the sequestration process. Unless Congress acts to reverse the cuts, Medicare providers would be cut under the sequestration process by 2 percent each year relative to baseline spending through 2021. On January 2, 2013, the President signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act, which extended the sequestration order required under the Budget Control Act until March 1, 2013. On March 1, 2013, President Obama issued the required sequestration order and, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 906, the 2 percent Medicare sequester is scheduled to take effect for payments starting on April 1, 2013.

Reforms to the United States healthcare system may adversely affect our business.

National healthcare reform remains a focus at the federal level. On March 21, 2010, the House of Representatives passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and the corresponding reconciliation bill. President Obama signed the larger comprehensive bill into law on March 23, 2010 and the reconciliation bill on March 30, 2010 (collectively, the "Health Care Reform Act"). The comprehensive $940 billion dollar overhaul could extend coverage to approximately 32 million previously uninsured Americans.

On June 28, 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Health Care Reform Act's "individual mandate" that will require individuals as of 2014 to either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Supreme Court also held, however, that the federal government

cannot force states to expand their Medicaid programs by threatening to cut their existing Medicaid funds. As a result of this decision, states are left with a choice about whether to expand their Medicaid programs to cover low-income, non-disabled adults without children. In addition, certain members of Congress continue to introduce legislation that would repeal or significantly amend the Health Care Reform Act. Because of the continued uncertainty about the implementation of the Health Care Reform Act, we cannot predict the impact of the law or any future reforms on our business.

If payments by managed care organizations and other commercial payers decrease, our revenue and profitability could be adversely affected.

We estimate that approximately 51%, 51% and 54% of our net patient service revenue for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively, was derived from commercial payers such as managed care organizations and private health insurance programs as well as individuals. As of December 31, 2012, we have over 1,300 contracts with commercial payers. These commercial payers generally pay us for the services rendered to an insured patient based upon predetermined rates. Managed care organizations typically pay at lower rates than private health insurance programs. While commercial payer rates are generally higher than government program reimbursement rates, approximately fifteen percent of our commercial payer rates are based in part on Medicare reimbursement rates and when Medicare rates are lowered, commercial rates are often lowered as well. If managed care organizations and other private insurers reduce their rates or we experience a significant shift in our revenue mix toward certain additional managed care payers or Medicare or Medicaid reimbursements, then our revenue and profitability may decline and our operating margins will be reduced. Nongovernment payers, including managed care payers, continue to demand discounted fee structures, and the trend toward consolidation among nongovernment payers tends to increase their bargaining power over fee structures. Our future success will depend, in part, on our ability to retain and renew our managed care contracts as well as enter into new managed care contracts on terms favorable to us. Any inability to maintain suitable financial arrangements with commercial payers could have a material adverse impact on our business.

Increasingly, commercial payers are turning to third-party benefits managers to pre-certify radiation oncology services or develop payment-based treatment protocols. The failure to obtain such pre-certifications and adhere to such protocols can result in the payers' denial of payment in whole or in part. While we are working with such benefits managers to assure compliance with their policies or to obtain modification of what we believe to be inappropriate policies, there can be an assurance that they will not have a material adverse effect on our business.

The United States economy has weakened significantly. Depressed consumer spending and higher unemployment rates continue to pressure many industries and geographic locations. During economic downturns, governmental entities often experience budget deficits as a result of increased costs and lower than expected tax collections. These budget deficits may force federal, state and local government entities to decrease spending for health and human service programs, including Medicare, Medicaid and similar programs, which represent significant payer sources for our treatment centers. Other risks we face from general economic weakness include potential declines in the population covered under managed care agreements, patient decisions to postpone or cancel elective procedures as well as routine diagnostic examinations, potential increases in the uninsured and underinsured populations and further difficulties in our collecting patient co-payment and deductible receivables.

Due to the rising costs of managed care premiums and co-pay amounts, coupled with the current economic environment, we may realize an increased exposure to bad debt due to patients' inability to pay for certain forms of cancer treatment.

As more patients become uninsured as a result of job losses or receive reduced coverage as a result of cost-control measures by employers to offset the increased costs of managed care premiums, patients are becoming increasingly responsible for the rising costs of treatment, which is increasing our exposure to bad debt. This also relates to patient accounts for which the primary insurance carrier has paid the amounts covered by the applicable agreement, but patient responsibility amounts (deductibles and co-payments) remain outstanding. The shifting responsibility to pay for care has, in some instances, resulted in patients electing not to receive certain forms of cancer treatment.

In response to this environment, we have improved our processes associated with verification of insurance eligibility and patient responsibility payment programs. In addition, we have improved our patient financial counseling efforts and developed tools to monitor our progress in this area. However, a continuation of the trends that have resulted in an increasing proportion of accounts receivable being comprised of uninsured accounts and a deterioration in the collectability of these accounts will adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations.

We depend on recruiting and retaining radiation oncologists and other qualified healthcare professionals for our success.

Our success is dependent upon our continuing ability to recruit, train and retain or affiliate with radiation oncologists, ICC physicians, physicists, dosimetrists and radiation therapists. While there is currently a national shortage of certain of these healthcare professionals, we have not experienced significant problems attracting and retaining key personnel and professionals in the recent past. We face competition for such personnel from other healthcare providers, research and academic institutions, government entities and other organizations. In the event we are unable to recruit and retain these professionals, such shortages could have a material adverse effect on our ability to grow. Additionally, many of our senior radiation oncologists, due to their reputations and experience, are very important in the recruitment and education of radiation oncologists. The loss of any such senior radiation oncologists or ICC physicians could negatively impact us.

Most of our radiation oncologists and other ICC physicians in the domestic U.S. are employed under employment agreements which, among other things, provide that they will not compete with us (or the professional corporations contracting with us) for a period of time after their employment terminates. Such covenants not to compete are enforced to varying degrees from state to state. In most states, a covenant not to compete will be enforced only to the extent that it is necessary to protect the legitimate business interest of the party seeking enforcement, that it does not unreasonably restrain the party against whom enforcement is sought and that it is not contrary to the public interest. This determination is made based upon all the facts and circumstances of the specific case at the time enforcement is sought. It is unclear whether our interests under our administrative services agreements will be viewed by courts as the type of protected business interest that would permit us or the professional corporations to enforce a non-competition covenant against the radiation oncologists. Since our success depends in substantial part on our ability to preserve the business of our radiation oncologists and other ICC physicians, a determination that these provisions are unenforceable could have a material adverse effect on us.

We depend on our senior management and we may be materially harmed if we lose any member of our senior management.

We are dependent upon the services of our senior management, especially Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., our Chief Executive Officer, President and a director on the Company's board of

directors, Daniel H. Galmarini, our Chief Technology Officer and Alejandro Dosoretz, President and Chief Executive Officer of Medical Developers Cooperatief U.A. B.V. We have entered into executive employment and non-competition agreements with certain members of our senior management, including Dr. Dosoretz. Because many members of our senior management team have been with us for over 10 years and have contributed greatly to our growth, their services would be very difficult, time consuming and costly to replace. We carry key-man life insurance on Dr. Daniel Dosoretz. The loss of key management personnel or our inability to attract and retain qualified management personnel could have a material adverse effect on us. A decision by any of these individuals to leave our employ, to compete with us or to reduce their involvement, could have a material adverse effect on our business.

We may not be able to grow our business effectively or successfully implement our growth plans if we are unable to recruit additional management and other personnel.

Our ability to continue to grow our business effectively and successfully implement our growth strategy is highly dependent upon our ability to attract and retain qualified management employees and other key employees. We believe there are a limited number of qualified people in our business and the industry in which we compete. As such, there can be no assurance that we will be able to identify and retain the key personnel that may be necessary to grow our business effectively or successfully implement our growth strategy. If we are unable to attract and retain talented personnel it could limit our ability to grow our business.

We have $762.4 million of total debt outstanding. Subject to the limits contained in the indenture governing our notes and our senior secured credit facilities, we may be able to incur additional debt from time to time to finance working capital, capital expenditures, investments or acquisitions, or for other purposes. If we do so, the risks related to our high level of debt could intensify. Specifically, our high level of debt could have important consequences, including the following:

Our ability to make scheduled payments on and to refinance our indebtedness depends on and is subject to our financial and operating performance, which in turn is affected by general and regional economic, financial, competitive, business and other factors beyond our control, including the availability of financing in the international banking and capital markets. We cannot assure you that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings will be available to us in an amount sufficient to enable us to service our debt, to refinance our debt or to fund our other liquidity needs. If we are unable to meet our debt obligations or to fund our other liquidity needs, we will need to restructure or refinance all or a portion of our debt, which could cause us to default on our debt obligations and impair our liquidity. Any refinancing of our indebtedness could be at higher

interest rates and may require us to comply with more onerous covenants which could further restrict our business operations.

Radiation therapy is a highly competitive business in each market in which we operate. Our treatment centers face competition from hospitals, other medical practitioners and other operators of radiation treatment centers. There is a growing trend by hospitals to employ medical oncologists and other ICC physicians which generally results in such physicians referring their patients to the hospitals' radiation facilities, rather than other free-standing facilities. There is also a growing trend of physicians in specialties other than radiation oncology, such as urology, entering the radiation treatment business. If these trends continue it could harm our referrals and our business. Certain of our competitors have longer operating histories and greater financial and other resources than us. In addition, in states that do not require a certificate of need for the purchase, construction or expansion of healthcare facilities or services, competition in the form of new services, facilities and capital spending is more prevalent. If our competitors are better able to attract patients, recruit physicians, expand services or obtain favorable managed care contracts at their facilities than our centers, we may experience an overall decline in patient volume. In the event that we are not able to compete successfully, our business may be adversely affected and competition may make it more difficult for us to affiliate with or employ additional radiation oncologists on terms that are favorable to us.

We could be the subject of governmental investigations, claims and litigation.

Healthcare companies are subject to numerous types of investigations by various governmental agencies. Further, under the False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring "qui tam", or "whistleblower", suits against companies that knowingly submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. The False Claims Act imposes penalties of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000, plus three times the amount of damages which the government sustains because of the submission of a false claim. In addition, if we are found to have violated the False Claims Act, we could be excluded from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other federal healthcare programs. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. Certain of our individual facilities have received, and other facilities may receive, inquiries from federal and state agencies related to potential False Claims Act liability. Depending on whether the underlying conduct in these or future inquiries or investigations could be considered systemic, their resolution could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

Governmental agencies and their agents, such as the Medicare Administrative Contractors, as well as the OIG, CMS and state Medicaid programs, conduct audits of our healthcare operations. Private payers may conduct similar post-payment audits, and we also perform internal audits and monitoring. Depending on the nature of the conduct found in such audits and whether the underlying conduct could be considered systemic, the resolution of these audits could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and liquidity.

The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 established the Recovery Audit Contractor ("RAC") three-year demonstration program to conduct post-payment reviews to detect and correct improper payments in the fee-for-service Medicare program. The Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 made the RAC program permanent and mandated its nationwide expansion by 2010. CMS awarded contracts to four RACs that have implemented the permanent RAC program on a nationwide basis. In addition, the Health Care Reform Act mandated the expansion of the RAC program to Medicaid. State Medicaid agencies have also increased their review activities. Should we be found out of compliance with any of these laws, regulations or programs, depending on

the nature of the findings, our business, our financial position and our results of operations could be negatively impacted.

We may be subject to actions for false claims, which could harm our business, if we do not comply with government coding and billing rules.

If we fail to comply with federal and state documentation, coding and billing rules, we could be subject to criminal and/or civil penalties, loss of licenses and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which could harm us. We estimate that approximately 48%, 48% and 45% of our net patient service revenue for the years ended December 31 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively, consisted of payments from Medicare and Medicaid programs. In billing for our services to third-party payers, we must follow complex documentation, coding and billing rules. These rules are based on federal and state laws, rules and regulations, various government pronouncements, and on industry practice. Failure to follow these rules could result in potential civil liability under the False Claims Act, under which extensive financial penalties can be imposed. It could further result in criminal liability under various federal and state criminal statutes. We submit thousands of claims for Medicare and other payments and there can be no assurance that there have not been errors. While we carefully and regularly review our documentation, coding and billing practices as part of our compliance program, the rules are frequently vague and confusing and we cannot assure that governmental investigators, private insurers or private whistleblowers will not challenge our practices. Such a challenge could result in a material adverse effect on our business.

If we fail to comply with the federal anti-kickback statute, we could be subject to criminal and civil penalties, loss of licenses and exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which could materially harm us.

A provision of the Social Security Act, commonly referred to as the federal anti-kickback statute, prohibits the offer, payment, solicitation or receipt of any form of remuneration in return for referring, ordering, leasing, purchasing or arranging for or recommending the ordering, purchasing or leasing of items or services payable by Medicare, Medicaid or any other federally funded healthcare program. The federal anti-kickback statute is very broad in scope, as remuneration includes the transfer of anything of value, in cash or in kind. Financial relationships covered by this statute can include any relationship where remuneration is provided for referrals including payments not commensurate with fair market value, whether in the form of space, equipment leases, professional or technical services or anything else of value. As it is an "intent-based" statute, as detailed in federal court precedent, one or both parties must intend the remuneration to be in exchange for or to induce referrals. Violations of the federal anti-kickback statute may result in substantial civil or criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $25,000, imprisonment of up to five years, civil penalties under the Civil Monetary Penalties Law of up to $50,000 for each violation, plus three times the remuneration involved, civil penalties under the federal False Claims Act of up to $11,000 for each claim submitted, plus three times the amounts paid for such claims and exclusion from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This participation exclusion, if applied to us or one or more of our subsidiaries or affiliates, could result in significant reductions in our revenues and could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In addition, most of the states in which we operate, including Florida, have also adopted laws, similar to the federal anti-kickback statute, that prohibit payments to physicians in exchange for referrals, some of which apply regardless of whether the source of payment is a government payer or a private payer. These statutes typically impose criminal and civil penalties as well as loss of licenses.

Under a provision of the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, civil monetary penalties (and exclusion) may be imposed on any person who offers or transfers remuneration to any patient who is a Medicare or Medicaid beneficiary, when the person knows or should know that the remuneration is likely to induce the patient to receive medical services from a particular provider. This broad provision

applies to many kinds of inducements or benefits provided to patients, including complimentary items, services or transportation that are of more than a nominal value. We have reviewed our practices of providing services to our patients, and have structured those services in a manner that we believe complies with the law and its interpretation by government authorities. We cannot provide assurances, however, that government authorities will not take a contrary view and impose civil monetary penalties and exclude us for past or present practices.

If we fail to comply with physician self-referral laws as they are currently interpreted or may be interpreted in the future, or if other legislative restrictions are issued, we could incur a significant loss of reimbursement revenue.

We are subject to the federal Stark Law, as well as similar state statutes and regulations, which bans payments for designated health services ("DHS") rendered as a result of referrals by physicians to DHS entities with which the physicians (or immediate family members) have a financial relationship. DHS includes, but is not limited to, radiation therapy, radiology and laboratory services. A "financial relationship" includes investment and compensation arrangements, both direct and indirect. The regulatory framework of the Stark Law is to first prohibit all referrals from physicians to entities for Medicare DHS and then to except certain types of arrangements from that broad general prohibition.

State self-referral laws and regulations vary significantly based on the state and, in many cases, have not been interpreted by courts or regulatory agencies. These state laws and regulations can encompass not only services reimbursed by Medicaid or government payers but also private payers. Violation of these federal and state laws and regulations may result in prohibition of payment for services rendered, loss of licenses, $15,000 civil monetary penalties for specified infractions, $100,000 for a circumvention scheme, criminal penalties, exclusion from Medicare and Medicaid programs, and potential false claims liability, including via "qui tam" action, of not less than $5,500 and not more than $11,000 per claim, plus three times the amount of damages that the government sustains because of an improperly submitted claim. The repayment provisions in the Stark Law are not dependent on the parties having an improper intent; rather, the Stark Law is a strict liability statute and any violation is subject to repayment of all "tainted" referrals.

Our compensation and other financial arrangements with physicians are governed by the federal Stark Law. We rely on certain exceptions to the Stark Law, including those covering employees and in-office ancillary services, and the exclusion of certain requests by radiation oncologists for radiation therapy services from the definition of "referral". Under our ICC model, we have relationships with non-radiation oncology physicians such as medical oncologists, surgeons and urologists that are members of a group practice with our radiation oncologists and we rely on the Stark group practice definition and rules with respect to such relationships.

The Health Care Reform Act also imposes new disclosure requirements, including one such requirement on referring physicians under the federal Stark Law to inform patients that they may obtain certain imaging services (e.g. MRI, CT and PET) or other designated health services as specified by the Secretary in the future from a provider other than that physician, his or her group practice, or another physician in his or her group practice. To date, CMS has not applied these disclosure requirements to radiation therapy referrals but could do so in the future.

While we believe that our financial relationships with physicians and referral practices are in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, we cannot guarantee that government authorities might take a different position. If we were found to be in violation of the Stark Law, we could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, including fines as specified above, exclusion from participation in government and private payer programs and requirements to refund amounts previously received from government and private payers.

In addition, expansion of our operations to new jurisdictions, or new interpretations of laws in our existing jurisdictions, could require structural and organizational modifications of our relationships with physicians to comply with that jurisdiction's laws. Such structural and organizational modifications could result in lower profitability and failure to achieve our growth objectives.

Certain states have proposed statutory or regulatory enactments that would prohibit the use of the Stark Law "in office ancillary exception" ("IOAE") for ICC physicians to obtain any financial benefit from radiation oncology and other DHS services even if they are part of a group practice. To date, only the state of Maryland has enacted such prohibition. Similarly, ASTRO is proposing federal legislation that would eliminate radiation oncology from the IOAE exception to the Stark Law. If any of these state or ASTRO initiatives are promulgated, this could have a material adverse impact on our ICC model and our business.

If a federal or state agency asserts a different position or enacts new laws or regulations regarding illegal payments under the Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental programs, we may be subject to civil and criminal penalties, experience a significant reduction in our revenue or be excluded from participation in the Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental programs.

Any change in interpretations or enforcement of existing or new laws and regulations could subject our current business practices to allegations of impropriety or illegality, or could require us to make changes in our treatment centers, equipment, personnel, services, pricing or capital expenditure programs, which could increase our operating expenses and have a material adverse effect on our operations or reduce the demand for or profitability of our services.

Additionally, new federal or state laws may be enacted that would cause our relationships with our radiation oncologists or other physicians to become illegal or result in the imposition of penalties against us or our treatment centers. If any of our business arrangements with our radiation oncologists or other physicians in a position to make referrals of radiation therapy services were deemed to violate the federal anti-kickback statute or similar laws, or if new federal or state laws were enacted rendering these arrangements illegal, our business would be adversely affected.

Our costs and potential risks have increased as a result of the regulations relating to privacy and security of patient information.

There are numerous federal and state laws and regulations addressing patient information privacy and security concerns, including state laws related to identity theft. In particular, the federal regulations issued under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as modified by Title XIII, subtitle D of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (collectively, "HIPAA") contain provisions that:

Compliance with these regulations requires us to spend money and substantial time and resources. We believe that we are in material compliance with the HIPAA regulations with which we are currently required to comply. If we fail to comply with the HIPAA regulations, we could suffer civil penalties up to $50,000 per violation, not to exceed $1.5 million per calendar year and criminal penalties with fines

up to $250,000 per violation and possible imprisonment. Our facilities could be subject to a periodic audit by the federal government, and enforcement of HIPAA violations may occur by either federal agencies or state attorneys general. In 2011, the government launched a HIPAA audit initiative that will likely result in greater HIPAA enforcement activity.

State law limitations and prohibitions on the corporate practice of medicine may materially harm our business and limit how we can operate.

State governmental authorities regulate the medical industry and medical practices extensively. Many states have corporate practice of medicine laws which prohibit us from:

In addition, many states impose limits on the tasks a physician may delegate to other staff members. We have administrative services agreements in states that prohibit the corporate practice of medicine such as California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina. Corporate practice of medicine laws and their interpretation vary from state to state, and regulatory authorities enforce them with broad discretion. We have structured our agreements and services in those states in a manner that we believe complied with the law and its interpretation by government authorities. If, however, we are deemed to be in violation of these laws, we could be required to restructure or terminate our agreements which could materially harm our business and limit how we operate. In the event the corporate practice of medicine laws of other states would adversely limit our ability to operate, it could prevent us from expanding into the particular state and impact our growth strategy.

In certain states we depend on administrative services agreements with professional corporations, including related party professional corporations, and if we are unable to continue to enter into them or they are terminated, we could be materially harmed.

Certain states, including California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina, have laws prohibiting business corporations from employing physicians. Our treatment centers in California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina, operate through administrative services agreements with professional corporations that employ the radiation oncologists who provide professional services at the treatment centers in those states. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, $118.4 million, $114.7 million and $132.8 million, respectively, of our net patient service revenue was derived from administrative services agreements, as opposed to $417.5 million, $524.0 million and $553.4 million, respectively, from all of our other centers. The professional corporations in these states are currently owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders, who are licensed to practice medicine in those states. As we enter into new states that will require an administrative services agreement, there can be no assurance that a related party professional corporation, or any

professional corporation, will be willing or able to enter into an administrative services agreement. Furthermore, if we enter into an administrative services agreement with an unrelated party there could be an increased risk of differences arising or future termination. We cannot assure you that a professional corporation will not seek to terminate an agreement with us on any basis, including on the basis of state laws prohibiting the corporate practice of medicine nor can we assure you that governmental authorities in those states will not seek termination of these arrangements on the same basis. While we have not been subject to such proceedings in the past, nor are we currently aware of any other corporations that are subject to such proceedings, we could be materially harmed if any state governmental authorities or the professional corporations with which we have an administrative services agreement were to succeed in such a termination.

Our business could be materially harmed by future interpretation or implementation of state laws regarding prohibitions on fee-splitting.

Many states prohibit the splitting or sharing of fees between physicians and non-physicians, as well as between treating physicians and referral sources. These laws vary from state to state and are enforced by courts and regulatory agencies, each with broad discretion. Some states have interpreted certain types of fee arrangements in practice management agreements between entities and physicians as unlawful fee-splitting. We believe our arrangements with physicians comply in all material respects with the fee-splitting laws of the states in which we operate. Nevertheless, if government regulatory authorities were to disagree, we and our radiation oncologists could be subject to civil and criminal penalties, and we could be required to restructure or terminate our contractual and other arrangements, which would result in a loss of revenue and could result in less input into the business decisions of such practices. In addition, expansion of our operations to other states with certain types of fee-splitting prohibitions may require structural and organizational modification to the form of relationships that we currently have with physicians, professional corporations and hospitals.

If we fail to comply with the laws and regulations applicable to our treatment center operations, we could suffer penalties or be required to make significant changes to our operations.

Our treatment center operations are subject to many laws and regulations at the federal, state and local government levels. These laws and regulations require that our treatment centers meet various licensing, certification and other requirements, including those relating to:

While we have structured our operations in a manner that we believe complies in all material respects with all applicable laws and regulations, we cannot assure you that government regulators will agree, given the breadth and complexity of such laws. If a government agency were to find that we are not in compliance with these laws, we could suffer civil or criminal penalties, including becoming the subject of cease and desist orders, rejection of the payment of our claims, the loss of our licenses to operate and our ability to participate in government or private healthcare programs.

The treatment of cancer patients is subject to potential revolutionary technological and therapeutic changes. Future technological developments could render our equipment obsolete. We may incur significant costs in replacing or modifying equipment in which we have already made a substantial investment prior to the end of its anticipated useful life. In addition, there may be significant advances in other cancer treatment methods, such as chemotherapy, surgery, biological therapy, or in cancer prevention techniques, which could reduce demand or even eliminate the need for the radiation therapy services we provide.

We believe that the U.S. Preventative Task Force recommendation against PSA screening, as well as NCI suggested changes in treatment patterns away from definitive treatment and towards "watchful waiting" or "active surveillance" have led to a decline in the volume of prostate cancer patients treated by radiation therapy facilities nationally as well as the volume of prostate cancer patients treated by other methods. On a same practice basis, in calendar year 2012, our prostate cancer treatment volumes decreased by 9.2% over calendar year 2011. There is no assurance that we may not suffer further declines which could have a materially adverse effect on our business.

Our growth strategy depends in part on our ability to acquire and develop additional treatment centers on favorable terms. If we are unable to do so, our future growth could be limited and our operating results could be adversely affected.

We may be unable to identify, negotiate and complete suitable acquisition and development opportunities on reasonable terms. We began operating our first radiation treatment center in 1983, and provide radiation therapy at all of our treatment centers. We expect to continue to add additional treatment centers in our existing and new local markets. Our growth, however, will depend on several factors, including:

Growth through acquisitions is a primary component of our business strategy. We continually evaluate potential acquisitions and intend to actively pursue acquisition opportunities, some of which could be material. Future acquisitions could be financed by internally generated funds, bank borrowings, public offerings or private placements of equity or debt securities, or a combination of the foregoing. There can be no assurance that we will be able to make acquisitions on terms favorable to us or at all. If we complete acquisitions, we will encounter various associated risks, including the possible inability to integrate an acquired business into our operations, goodwill impairment, diversion of management's attention and unanticipated problems or liabilities, some or all of which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and financial performance. See "Risk Factors—We may encounter numerous business risks in acquiring and developing additional treatment centers, and may have difficulty operating and integrating those treatment centers."

We may encounter numerous business risks in acquiring and developing additional treatment centers, and may have difficulty operating and integrating those treatment centers.

Over the past three years ended December 31, 2012, we have acquired 37 treatment centers and developed 4 treatment centers. When we acquire or develop additional treatment centers, we may:

Larger acquisitions can substantially increase our potential exposure to business risks. Furthermore, integrating a new treatment center could be expensive and time consuming, and could disrupt our ongoing business and distract our management and other key personnel.

We may continue to explore acquisition opportunities outside of the United States when favorable opportunities are available to us. In addition to the risks set forth herein, foreign acquisitions involve unique risks including the particular economic, political and regulatory risks associated with the specific country, currency risks, the relative uncertainty regarding laws and regulations and the potential difficulty of integrating operations across different cultures and languages.

We currently plan to continue to acquire and develop new treatment centers in existing and new local markets. We may not be able to structure economically beneficial arrangements in new markets as a result of healthcare laws applicable to such market or otherwise. If these plans change for any reason or the anticipated schedules for opening and costs of development are revised by us, we may be negatively impacted. There can be no assurance that these planned treatment centers will be completed or that, if developed, will achieve sufficient patient volume to generate positive operating margins. If we are unable to timely and efficiently integrate an acquired or newly-developed treatment center, our business could suffer. In addition, we may incur significant transaction fees and expenses even for potential transactions that are not consummated.

We cannot assure you that we will achieve the revenue, and benefits identified in this offering memorandum from completed acquisitions or that we will achieve synergies and cost savings or benefits in connection with future acquisitions. In addition, many of the businesses that we have acquired and will acquire have unaudited financial statements that have been prepared by the management of such companies and have not been independently reviewed and audited. We cannot assure that the financial statements of companies we have acquired or will acquire would not be materially different if such statements were audited. Finally, we cannot assure you that we will continue to acquire businesses at valuations consistent with our prior acquisitions or that we will complete acquisitions at all.

Efforts to regulate the construction, acquisition or expansion of healthcare treatment centers could prevent us from developing or acquiring additional treatment centers or other facilities or renovating our existing treatment centers.

Many states have enacted certificate of need laws which require prior approval for the construction, acquisition or expansion of healthcare treatment centers. In giving approval, these states consider the need for additional or expanded healthcare treatment centers or services. In the states of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina and West Virginia in which we currently operate, certificates of need must be obtained for capital expenditures exceeding a prescribed amount, changes in capacity or services offered and various other matters. Other states in which we now or may in the future operate may also require certificates of need under certain circumstances not currently applicable to us. We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain the certificates of need or other required approvals for ongoing, additional or expanded treatment centers or services in the future. In addition, at the time we acquire a treatment center, we may agree to replace equipment or expand the acquired treatment center. If we are unable to obtain required approvals, we may not be able to acquire additional treatment centers or other facilities, expand the healthcare services we provide at these treatment centers or replace equipment or expand acquired treatment centers.

We are exposed to local business risks in different countries, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

We have significant operations in foreign countries. Currently, we operate through 23 legal entities in Argentina, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Mexico and El Salvador, in addition to our operations in the United States. Our offshore operations are subject to risks inherent in doing business in foreign countries, including, but not necessarily limited to:

We may not be successful in developing and implementing policies and strategies to address the foregoing factors in a timely and effective manner at each location where we do business. Consequently, the occurrence of one or more of the foregoing factors could have a material adverse effect on our international operations or upon our financial condition and results of operations.

Further, our international operations require us to comply with a number of United States and international regulations. For example, we must comply with U.S. economic sanctions and export control laws in connection with exports of products and services, and we must comply with the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"), which prohibits U.S. companies or their agents and employees from providing anything of value to a foreign official or agent thereof for the purposes of influencing any act or decision of these individuals in their official capacity to help obtain or retain business, direct business to any person or corporate entity or obtain any unfair advantage. Any failure by us to ensure that our employees and agents comply with the FCPA, economic sanctions and export controls, and applicable laws and regulations in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial penalties or restrictions on our ability to conduct business in certain foreign jurisdictions, and our results of operations and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected.

In addition, local governments may take actions that are adverse to our interests and our business. For example, in 2012 Argentina's government nationalized the country's largest oil and gas company via taking a 51% stake. While no such proposal has been made or threatened with respect to any businesses in the Argentine healthcare sector, we have significant operations in Argentina and any such development could have a material adverse effect on our international operations or upon our financial condition and results of operations.

Our international subsidiaries accounted for $60.5 million and $81.2 million or 9.4% and 11.7%, of our revenues for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

Fluctuations in currency exchange rates may significantly impact our results of operations and may significantly affect the comparability of our results between financial periods.

Some of our operations are conducted by subsidiaries in foreign countries. The results of the operations and the financial position of these subsidiaries are reported in the relevant foreign currencies and then translated into U.S. dollars at the applicable exchange rates for inclusion in our consolidated financial statements. The main currency to which we are exposed, besides the U.S. dollar, is the Argentine peso. The exchange rate between the Argentine peso and the U.S. dollar in recent years has fluctuated significantly and may continue to do so in the future. A depreciation of this currency against the U.S. dollar will decrease the U.S. dollar equivalent of the amounts derived from these operations reported in our consolidated financial statements and an appreciation of this currency will result in a corresponding increase in such amounts. In addition, currency fluctuations may affect the comparability of our results of operations between financial periods.

We incur currency transaction risk whenever we enter into a transaction using a currency other than the local currency of the transacting entity. Given the volatility of exchange rates, there can be no assurance that we will be able to effectively manage our currency transaction risks or that any volatility in currency exchange rates will not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Exchange controls implemented by the Argentine Government on the acquisition of U.S. dollars and other foreign currencies could have a material impact in our operations, business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Argentine government has implemented certain measures that control and restrict the ability of companies and individuals to exchange Argentine Pesos for foreign currencies. Those measures include, among other things, the requirement to obtain the prior approval from the Argentine Tax Authority of the foreign currency transaction (for example and without limitation, for the payment of non-Argentine goods and services, payment of principal and interest on non-Argentine debt and also payment of dividends to parties outside of the country), which approval process could delay, and eventually restrict, the ability to exchange Argentine pesos for other currencies, such as U.S. dollars.

Those approvals are administered by the Argentine Central Bank through the MULC, which is the only market where exchange transactions may be lawfully made. Further, restrictions also currently apply to the acquisition of any foreign currency for holding as cash within Argentina. There can be no assurance that the Central Bank of Argentina or other government agencies will not increase such controls or restrictions or make modifications to these regulations or establish more severe restrictions on currency exchange, making payments to foreign creditors or providers, dividend payments to foreign shareholders or require its prior authorization for such purposes. As a result of these exchange controls and restrictions could materially affect the business, financial condition and results of operations of our Argentine subsidiaries and could significantly impact our ability to comply with our foreign currency obligations, each of which could have a material adverse effect on the Company.

Our financial results may suffer if we have to write-off goodwill or other intangible assets.

A significant portion of our total assets consist of goodwill and other intangible assets. Goodwill and other intangible assets, net of accumulated amortization, accounted for approximately 56% and 60% of the total assets on our balance sheet as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. We may not realize the value of our goodwill or other intangible assets. We expect to engage in additional transactions that will result in our recognition of additional goodwill or other intangible assets. We evaluate on a regular basis whether events and circumstances have occurred that indicate that all or a portion of the carrying amount of goodwill or other intangible assets may no longer be recoverable, and is therefore impaired. Under current accounting rules, any determination that impairment has occurred would require us to write-off the impaired portion of our goodwill or the unamortized portion of our intangible assets, resulting in a charge to our earnings. Such a write-off could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. For the year ended December 31, 2010, we wrote-off approximately $91.2 million in goodwill as a result of our annual impairment test and an additional $2.5 million as a result of closing certain radiation treatment centers. For the year ended December 31, 2011, we wrote-off approximately $360.6 million in goodwill, trade name, leasehold improvements and other investments as a result of our annual impairment testing of our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets and rebranding initiatives relating to our trade name. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we wrote-off approximately $81.0 million in goodwill and leasehold improvements as a result of our interim impairment testing of our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets.

Our information systems are critical to our business and a failure of those systems could materially harm us.

We depend on our ability to store, retrieve, process and manage a significant amount of information, and to provide our radiation treatment centers with efficient and effective accounting and scheduling systems. Our information systems require maintenance and upgrading to meet our needs, which could significantly increase our administrative expenses. We are currently upgrading multiple systems and migrating to other systems within our organization.

Furthermore, any system failure that causes an interruption in service or availability of our systems could adversely affect operations or delay the collection of revenues. Even though we have implemented network security measures, our servers are vulnerable to computer viruses, break-ins and similar disruptions from unauthorized tampering. The occurrence of any of these events could result in interruptions, delays, the loss or corruption of data, or cessations in the availability of systems, all of which could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations and harm our business reputation.

The performance of our information technology and systems is critical to our business operations. Our information systems are essential to a number of critical areas of our operations, including:

If we fail to effectively and timely implement electronic health record systems, our operations could be adversely affected.

As required by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the DHHS has developed and is implementing an incentive payment program for eligible healthcare professionals that adopt and meaningfully use certified electronic health record ("EHR") technology. If our radiation treatment centers are unable to meet the requirements for participation in the incentive payment program, we will not be eligible to receive incentive payments that could offset some of the costs of implementing EHR systems. Further, beginning in 2015, eligible healthcare professionals that fail to demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology will be subject to reduced payments from Medicare. Failure to implement EHR systems effectively and in a timely manner could have a material, adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

In connection with the financial reporting and close process for the fourth quarter of 2012 we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting with respect to the valuation of goodwill. Future material weaknesses could lead to errors in our financial statements that could require a restatement or untimely filings, which could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information.

In connection with the financial reporting and close process for the fourth quarter of 2012 we identified a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting with respect to the valuation of goodwill. Further material weaknesses in internal control over financial reporting or ineffectiveness in disclosure controls and procedures could result in errors in our financial statements or untimely filings, which could cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information.

A significant number of our treatment centers are concentrated in certain states, particularly Florida, which makes us sensitive to regulatory, economic and other conditions in those states.

Our Florida treatment centers accounted for approximately 45%, 40% and 39% of our freestanding radiation revenues during the years ended December 31 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Our treatment centers are also concentrated in the states of Michigan and North Carolina, which accounted for approximately 5% and 8%, respectively, of our freestanding radiation revenues for the year ended December 31, 2012. This concentration makes us particularly sensitive to regulatory requirements in those locations, including those related to false and improper claims, anti-kickback laws, self-referral laws, fee-splitting, corporate practice of medicine, anti-trust, licensing and certificates of need, as well as economic and other conditions which could impact us. If our treatment centers in these states are adversely affected by changes in regulatory, economic and other conditions, our revenue and profitability may decline.

Our treatment centers in Florida and other areas that could be disrupted or damaged by hurricanes.

Florida is susceptible to hurricanes and we currently have 31 radiation treatment centers located in Florida. Our Florida centers accounted for approximately 45%, 40% and 39% of our freestanding radiation revenues during the years ended December 31 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. In 2005, 21 of our treatment centers in South Florida were disrupted by Hurricane Wilma which required us to close all of these centers for one business day. Although none of these treatment centers suffered structural damage as a result of the hurricane, their utility services were disrupted. While Hurricane Wilma did not have any long-term impact on our business, our Florida treatment centers and any of our other treatment centers located in other areas that are in the path of a hurricane could be subject to significant hurricane-related disruptions and/or damage in the future and could have an adverse affect on our business and financial results. We carry property damage and business interruption insurance on our facilities, but there can be no assurance that it would be adequate to cover all of our hurricane-related losses.

We have potential conflicts of interest relating to our related party transactions which could harm our business.

We have potential conflicts of interest relating to existing agreements we have with certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders. In 2010, 2011 and 2012, we paid an aggregate of $19.9 million, $21.5 million and $21.6 million, respectively, under certain of our related party agreements, including leases, and we received $85.6 million, $82.7 million and $62.5 million, respectively, pursuant to our administrative services agreements with related parties. Potential conflicts of interest can exist if a related party has to make a decision that has different implications for us and the related party. If a dispute arises in connection with any of these agreements, if not resolved satisfactorily to us, our business could be harmed. These agreements include

In California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina, we have administrative services agreements with professional corporations that are owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders who own interests in these professional corporations. While we have transition services agreements corresponding to our administrative services agreements in place in all states except New York that provide us with the ability to designate qualified successor physician owners of the shares held by the physician owners of these professional corporations upon the occurrence of certain events, there can be no assurance that we will be able to enforce them under the laws of the respective states or that they will not be challenged by regulatory agencies. Potential conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the administrative services agreements that may have materially different implications for us and the professional corporations and there can be no assurance that it will not harm us. For example, we bill for such services either on a fixed basis, percentage of net collections basis, or on a per treatment basis, depending on the particular state requirements and certain of these arrangements are subject to renegotiation on an annual basis. We may be unable to renegotiate acceptable fees, in which event many of the administrative services agreements provide for binding arbitration. If we are unsuccessful in renegotiations or arbitration this could negatively impact our operating margins or result in the termination of our administrative services agreements.

Additionally, we lease 36 of our treatment centers from ownership groups that consist of certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders. Our lease for the Broadway office in Fort Myers, Florida is on a month-to-month basis and there can be no assurance that it will continue in the future. We may be unable to renegotiate these leases when they come up for renewal on terms acceptable to us, if at all.

In October 2003, we replaced our existing third-party medical malpractice insurance coverage with coverage we obtained from an insurance entity which is owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders. We renewed this coverage in 2010, 2011 and 2012, with the approval of the Audit/Compliance Committee of the Company's board of directors. We may be unable to renegotiate this coverage at acceptable rates and comparable coverage may not be available from third-party insurance companies. If we are unsuccessful in renewing our malpractice insurance coverage, we may not be able to continue to operate without being exposed to substantial risks of claims being made against us for damage awards we are unable to pay.

Related party transactions between us and any related party are subject to approval by the Audit/Compliance Committee on behalf of the Company's board of directors or by the Company's board of directors, and disputes are handled by the Company's board of directors. There can be no assurance that the above or any future conflicts of interest will be resolved in our favor. If not resolved, such conflicts could harm our business. For a further description of our related party transactions, see "Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions, and Director Independence."

Our failure to comply with laws related to hazardous materials could materially harm us.

Our treatment centers provide specialized treatment involving the use of radioactive material in the treatment of the lungs, prostate, breasts, cervix and other organs. The materials are obtained from, and, if not permanently placed in a patient or consumed, returned to, a third-party provider of supplies to hospitals and other radiation therapy practices, which has the ultimate responsibility for its proper disposal. We, however, remain subject to state and federal laws regulating the protection of employees who may be exposed to hazardous material and regulating the proper handling, storage and disposal of that material. Although we believe we are in compliance in all material respects with all applicable laws, a violation of such laws, or the future enactment of more stringent laws or regulations, could subject us to liability, or require us to incur costs that could have a material adverse effect on us.

In response to a number of articles concerning the risk of significant (sometimes fatal) errors in radiation therapy, especially relating to linear radiation, accreditation of facilities and the establishment of a national error reporting database are under consideration.

Several articles have been published discussing the risks of (sometimes fatal) errors in radiation therapy treatment, especially those relating to linear accelerators. In response, American College of Radiation Oncology ("ACRO") has called for required accreditation of all facilities which bill Medicare for advanced medical imaging and radiation oncology services, including those in hospitals. In addition, the American Society for Radiation Oncology called for the establishment of the nation's first central database for the reporting of errors involving linear accelerators and CT scanners. Federal legislation in these areas is under consideration and a congressional hearing was recently held.

Of our 95 domestic U.S. treatment centers, 78 have received or are in process of receiving ACRO accreditation. In addition to a deep physics infrastructure and internal maintenance department, we have recently begun to utilize Gamma Function as a broad application radiation safety monitoring tool to minimize potential errors in our radiation therapy treatments. While we continue to improve upon safety measures aimed at minimizing errors in radiation therapy treatment in accordance with our internal protocols as well as the mandates of organizations like ACRO, we cannot assure you that any

further critical press and government scrutiny will not adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We may be subject to liabilities from claims brought against our facilities.

We could be subject to litigation relating to our business practices, including claims and legal actions by patients and others in the ordinary course of business alleging malpractice, product liability or other legal theories. For a discussion of current pending material litigation against us, see "Item 3. Legal Proceedings."

If payments for claims exceed actuarially determined estimates, are not covered by insurance, or reinsurers, if any, fail to meet their obligations, our results of operations and financial position could be adversely affected.

Our financial results could be adversely affected by the increasing costs of professional liability insurance and by successful malpractice claims.

We are exposed to the risk of professional liability and other claims against us and our radiation oncologists and other physicians and professionals arising out of patient medical treatment at our treatment centers. Our risk exposure as it relates to our non-radiation oncology physicians could be greater than with our radiation oncologists to the extent such non-radiation oncology physicians are engaged in diagnostic activities. Malpractice claims, if successful, could result in substantial damage awards which might exceed the limits of any applicable insurance coverage. Insurance against losses of this type can be expensive and insurance premiums may increase in the near future. Insurance rates vary from state to state, by physician specialty and other factors. The rising costs of insurance premiums, as well as successful malpractice claims against us or one of our physicians, could have a material adverse effect on our financial position and results of operations.

It is also possible that our excess liability and other insurance coverage will not continue to be available at acceptable costs or on favorable terms. In addition, our insurance does not cover all potential liabilities arising from governmental fines and penalties, indemnification agreements and certain other uninsurable losses. For example, from time to time we agree to indemnify third parties, such as hospitals and clinical laboratories, for various claims that may not be covered by insurance. As a result, we may become responsible for substantial damage awards that are uninsured.

If payment for claims exceed actuarially determined estimates, are not covered by insurance, or reinsurers, if any, fail to meet their obligations, our results of operations and financial position could be adversely affected.

We are indirectly owned and controlled by Vestar and its interests may conflict with yours as a noteholder.

Vestar indirectly controls approximately 81% of the Class A voting equity units of RT Investments LLC, which controls us, and which in turn controls Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. ("RTS"). As a result, they have the power to elect a majority of RTS's board of directors and effectively have control over major decisions regardless of whether noteholders believe that any such decisions are in their own best interests. The interests of Vestar as an equity holder may conflict with your interests as a noteholder of RTS. Vestar may have an incentive to increase the value of their investment or cause us to distribute funds at the expense of our financial condition and affect our ability to make payments on the notes. In addition, Vestar may have an interest in pursuing acquisitions, divestitures, financings or other transactions that it believes could enhance its equity investments even though such transactions might involve risks to you as a noteholder of RTS.

Our executive and administrative offices are located in Fort Myers, Florida. These offices contain approximately 79,000 square feet of space. These offices will be adequate for our current primary needs, we also believe that we will require significant additional space to meet our future needs and such future expansion is in the preliminary stages.

Our radiation treatment centers typically range in size from 5,000 to 12,000 square feet. We currently operate 126 radiation treatment centers in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina, West Virginia and in international markets in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean located in Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala and El Salvador. We own the real estate on which four of our treatment centers are located. We lease land and space at 117 treatment center locations, of which in 36 of these locations, certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders have an ownership interest. These leases expire at various dates between 2013 and 2044 and 73 of these leases have one or more renewal options of five or 10 years. Also, five of our treatment center locations are in hospital-based and other group facilities. We consider all of our offices and treatment centers to be well-suited to our present requirements. However, as we expand to additional treatment centers, or where additional capacity is necessary in a treatment center, additional space will be obtained where feasible. For further information relating to our properties and treatment centers, see "Business—Treatment Centers."

We are involved in certain legal actions and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business. We do not believe that an adverse decision in any of these matters would have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

We are a direct wholly owned subsidiary of RT Investments. Accordingly, there is no public trading market for our common stock.

As of March 1, 2013, there was one owner of record of our common stock, RT Investments.

We have not paid cash dividends on our common stock and we do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

Our senior secured credit facilities and the indenture governing the senior subordinated notes generally prohibit the payment of dividends by us on shares of our common stock, with certain limited exceptions.

The following table lists the number of securities of RT Investments available for issuance as of December 31, 2012 under the RT Investments equity-based incentive plan, as amended. For a description of the plan, please see note 16 to the consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Plan Category			Number of Securities Remaining Available for Future Issuance under Equity Compensation Plans (excluding Securities Reflected in Column(a))

Equity compensation plans approved by security holders	N/A	N/A	Non-voting preferred equity units: 4,172
			Voting Class A equity units: 51,854
			Non-voting EMEP equity units: 9,257
			Non-voting MEP equity units: 84,542
			Non-voting Class G equity units: 100
Equity compensation plans not approved by security holders	N/A	N/A	N/A
TOTAL	—	—	Non-voting preferred equity units: 4,172
			Voting Class A equity units: 51,854
			Non-voting EMEP equity units: 9,257
			Non-voting MEP equity units: 84,542
			Non-voting Class G equity units: 100

On March 1, 2011, 25 shares of common stock of the Company were issued in connection with our acquisition of MDLLC, which we refer to herein as the "MDLLC Acquisition". In addition, the Company's direct parent, RT Investments issued 13,660 Preferred Units and 258,955 Class A Units as a component of the consideration in the MDLLC Acquisition.

The Company's direct parent, RT Investments, sold equity securities during this period. The following table sets forth the number of units of common equity of RT Investments issued during 2012 pursuant to the RT Investments equity-based incentive plan, as amended. The units were granted under Rule 701 promulgated under the Securities Act.

Effective as of June 11, 2012, RT Investments entered into the Amended LLC Agreement. The Amended LLC Agreement established new classes of equity units in RT Investments in the form of Class MEP Units, Class EMEP Units, Class L Units and Class G Units for issuance to employees, officers, directors and other service providers, establishes new distribution entitlements related thereto, and modifies the distribution entitlements for holders of preferred units and Class A Units of RT Investments ("2012 Plan"). The Amended LLC Agreement authorized for issuance under the 2012 Plan 1,100,200 units of limited liability company interests consisting of 1,000,000 Class MEP Units, 100,000 Class EMEP Units, 100 Class L Units and 100 Class G Units. As of December 31, 2012, there were 84,542 Class MEP Units, 9,257 Class EMEP Units and 100 Class G Units available for future issuance under the 2012 Plan.

The Company's direct parent, RT Investments repurchased the following equity units during 2012:

The following selected historical consolidated financial data as of and for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012 (Successor) were derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The selected historical consolidated financial data for the period from January 1 to February 21, 2008 (Predecessor), the period from February 22 to December 31, 2008 (Successor) and for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2010 were derived from our audited consolidated financial statements, adjusted for the retrospective presentation impact of changes in accounting guidance related to non-controlling interests, which are not included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. On February 22, 2008, our wholly owned subsidiary, Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. ("RTS"), consummated an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC ("RT Investments"), Parent and RTS MergerCo, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to which RTS MergerCo, Inc. was merged with and into RTS with RTS as the surviving corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). These statements have been prepared using the Predecessor's basis in the assets and liabilities and the historical results of operations for periods prior to the Merger. Periods subsequent to February 22, 2008 have been prepared using our basis in the assets and liabilities acquired in the purchase transaction. Our historical results included below and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K are not necessarily indicative of our future performance. You should read the following data in conjunction with "Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations," our audited consolidated financial statements and the

accompanying notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other financial information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

	Predecessor			Successor

	Period From January 1 to February 21, 2008			Period From February 22 to December 31, 2008			Year Ended December 31, 2009			Year Ended December 31, 2010			Year Ended December 31, 2011			Year Ended December 31, 2012
(in thousands):
Consolidated Statements of Operations Data:
Net patient service revenue	$	76,927		$	413,305		$	517,646		$	535,913		$	638,690		$	686,216
Other revenue		1,179			5,864			6,838			8,050			6,027			7,735

Total revenues		78,106			419,169			524,484			543,963			644,717			693,951
Salaries and benefits		42,209			206,159			259,532			282,302			326,782			372,656
Medical supplies		2,924			32,545			45,361			43,027			51,838			61,589
Facility rent expense		2,269			13,783			22,106			27,885			33,375			39,802
Other operating expenses		3,102			17,027			24,398			27,103			33,992			38,988
General and administrative expenses		20,340			43,393			54,537			65,798			81,688			82,236
Depreciation and amortization		5,347			32,609			46,416			46,346			54,084			64,893
Provision for doubtful accounts		3,789			17,896			12,871			8,831			16,117			16,916
Interest expense, net		4,721			55,100			62,502			58,505			60,656			77,494
Electronic health records incentive income		—			—			—			—			—			(2,256	)
Fair value adjustment of earn-out liability and noncontrolling interests-redeemable		—			—			—			—			—			1,219
Gain on sale of interest in a radiation practice		—			(3,113	)		—			—			—			—
Loss on sale of assets of a radiation treatment center		—			—			—			1,903			—			—
Termination of professional services agreement		—			7,000			—			—			—			—
Loss on sale of real estate		—			1,036			—			—			—			—
Loss on investments		—			—			—			—			250			—
Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment		—			—			—			—			(234	)		—
Loss on foreign currency translations		—			—			—			—			106			339
Loss on forward currency derivative contracts		—			—			—			—			672			1,165
Early extinguishment of debt		3,688			—			—			10,947			—			4,473
Impairment loss		—			—			3,474			97,916			360,639			81,021

Total expenses		88,389			423,435			531,197			670,563			1,019,965			840,535
Loss before income taxes		(10,283	)		(4,266	)		(6,713	)		(126,600	)		(375,248	)		(146,584	)
Income tax expense (benefit)		570			(1,413	)		1,002			(12,810	)		(25,365	)		4,545

Net loss		(10,853	)		(2,853	)		(7,715	)		(113,790	)		(349,883	)		(151,129	)
Net income attributable to non-controlling interests		(19	)		(2,483	)		(1,835	)		(1,698	)		(3,558	)		(3,079	)

Net loss attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder	$	(10,872	)	$	(5,336	)	$	(9,550	)	$	(115,488	)	$	(353,441	)	$	(154,208	)

Balance Sheet Data (at end of period):
Cash and cash equivalents				$	49,168		$	32,958		$	13,977		$	10,177		$	15,410
Working capital(1)					93,935			49,970			19,076			19,929			24,262
Total assets					1,405,940			1,379,225			1,236,330			998,592			922,301
Finance obligations					60,605			77,230			8,568			14,266			17,192
Total debt					577,444			549,059			598,831			679,033			762,368
Total equity					629,171			622,007			508,208			177,294			18,467
Other Financial Data:
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges(2)		—			—			—			—			—			—
Deficiency to cover fixed charges(3)		10,341			6,631			9,127			128,292			377,137			148,837

Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

The following discussion and analysis should be read in conjunction with the "Selected Financial Data" and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. This section of this Annual Report on Form 10-K contains forward-looking statements that involve substantial risks and uncertainties, such as statements about our plans, objectives, expectations and intentions. We use words such as "expect", "anticipate", "plan", "believe", "seek", "estimate", "intend", "future" and similar expressions to identify forward-looking statements. In particular, statements that we make in this section relating to the sufficiency of anticipated sources of capital to meet our cash requirements are forward-looking statements. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements for many reasons, including as a result of some of the factors described below and in the section titled "Risk Factors". You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

We own, operate and manage treatment centers focused principally on providing comprehensive radiation treatment alternatives ranging from conventional external beam radiation, Intensity Modulated Radiation Therapy ("IMRT"), as well as newer, more technologically-advanced procedures along with other services. We believe we are the largest company in the United States focused principally on providing radiation therapy and most advanced organization in terms of integrating related oncology physicians. We opened our first radiation treatment center in 1983 and, as of December 31, 2012 we provided radiation therapy services in 126 treatment centers. Most of our treatment centers are strategically clustered into 28 local markets in 15 states, including Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and West Virginia and 31 treatment centers are operated in Latin America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. Of these 126 treatment centers, 38 treatment centers were internally developed, 81 were acquired, two were transitioned from hospital-based treatment centers to freestanding treatment centers and five involve hospital-based treatment centers and other groups. We have continued to expand our affiliation with physician specialties in closely related areas including gynecological, breast and surgical oncology, medical oncology and urology in a limited number of our local markets to strengthen our clinical working relationships and to evolve from a freestanding radiation oncology centric model to an Integrated Cancer ("ICC") model.

On October 19, 2007, our wholly owned subsidiary, RTS entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with RT Investments, Parent and RTS MergerCo, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent, pursuant to RTS MergerCo, Inc. was merged with and into RTS with RTS as the surviving corporation and as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger"). Upon completion of the Merger, each share of RTS's common stock outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger (other than certain shares held by members of RT Investments' management team and certain employees) was converted into $32.50 in cash without interest. The Merger was consummated on February 21, 2008 (the "Closing"). Immediately following the Closing, Parent became the owner of all of the outstanding common stock of RTS, which in turn, became a wholly-owned indirect subsidiary of RT Investments, and Vestar Capital Partners, Inc. and its affiliates became the beneficial owners of approximately 57% of the outstanding Class A voting equity units of RT Investments and its co-investors became the beneficial owners of approximately 26% of the outstanding Class A voting equity units of RT Investments. At December 31, 2012, Vestar and its affiliates controlled approximately 81% of the Class A voting equity units of RT Investments through its ability to directly or indirectly control its co-investors. In addition, at the Closing, the management investors, including current and former directors and executive officers, either exchanged certain shares

of RTS's common stock or invested cash in RTS, in each case, in exchange for Class A voting equity units and non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments. At the Closing, these management investors as a group became the beneficial owners of approximately 17% of the outstanding Class A voting equity units of RT Investments. RT Investments also adopted a management incentive equity plan pursuant to which certain employees are eligible to receive incentive unit awards (EMEP and MEP non-voting equity units) from an equity pool representing up to 12% of the common equity value of RT Investments, which as of December 31, 2012 was 9.2%. In connection with the Closing, Vestar, its affiliates and these management investors invested approximately $627.3 million in equity units of RT Investments.

We use a number of metrics to assist management in evaluating financial condition and operating performance, and the most important follow:

Our revenue growth is primarily driven by expanding the number of our centers, optimizing the utilization of advanced technologies at our existing centers and benefiting from demographic and population trends in most of our local markets and by providing value added services to other healthcare and provider organizations. New centers are added or acquired based on capacity, demographics, and competitive considerations.

The average revenue per treatment is sensitive to the mix of services used in treating a patient's tumor. The reimbursement rates set by Medicare and commercial payers tend to be higher for more advanced treatment technologies, reflecting their higher complexity. A key part of our business strategy is to make advanced technologies available once supporting economics exist. For example, we have been utilizing Image Guided Radiation Therapy ("IGRT") and Gamma Function, a proprietary capability to enable measurement of the actual amount of radiation delivered during a treatment and to provide immediate feedback for adaption of future treatments as well as for quality assurance, where appropriate, now that reimbursement codes are in place for these services.

The principal costs of operating a treatment center are (1) the salary and benefits of the physician and technical staff, and (2) equipment and facility costs. The capacity of each physician and technical position is limited to a number of delivered treatments, while equipment and facility costs for a treatment center are generally fixed. These capacity factors cause profitability to be very sensitive to treatment volume. Profitability will tend to increase as resources from fixed costs including equipment and facility costs are utilized.

We receive payments for our services rendered to patients from the government Medicare and Medicaid programs, commercial insurers, managed care organizations and our patients directly. Generally, our revenue is determined by a number of factors, including the payer mix, the number and nature of procedures performed and the rate of payment for the procedures. The following table sets forth the percentage of our net patient service revenue we earned based upon the patients' primary insurance by category of payer in our last three fiscal years.

Medicare is a major funding source for the services we provide and government reimbursement developments can have a material effect on operating performance. These developments include the reimbursement amount for each Current Procedural Terminology ("CPT") service that we provide and the specific CPT services covered by Medicare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), the government agency responsible for administering the Medicare program, administers an annual process for considering changes in reimbursement rates and covered services. We have played, and will continue to play, a role in that process both directly and through the radiation oncology professional societies.

Since cancer disproportionately affects elderly people, a significant portion of our net patient service revenue is derived from the Medicare program, as well as related co-payments. Medicare reimbursement rates are determined by CMS and are lower than our normal charges. Medicaid reimbursement rates are typically lower than Medicare rates; Medicaid payments represent approximately 2.7% of our net patient service revenue for the year ended December 31, 2012.

In the final Medicare 2013 Physician Fee Schedule, CMS reduced payments for radiation oncology by 7 percent. This reduction relates to (1) the fourth year of the four-year transition to the utilization of new Physician Practice Information Survey (PPIS) data, (2) a change in equipment interest rate assumptions, (3) budget neutrality effects of a proposal to create a new discharge care management code, (4) input changes for certain radiation therapy procedures, and (5) certain other revised radiation oncology codes. The largest of these changes (accounting for 4 percent of the gross reduction) reflects the transition of the final 25 percent of PPIS data used in the PERVU methodology. The change in the CMS interest rate policy (accounting for 3 percent of the gross reduction) reduces interest rate assumptions in the CMS database from 11 percent to a sliding scale of 5.5 percent to 8 percent. CMS also is finalizing its proposal to create a HCPCS G-code to describe transition care management from a hospital or other institutional stay to a primary physician in the community (accounting for 1 percent of the gross reduction). While this policy benefits primary care, non-primary care physicians are impacted due to the budget-neutrality of the PFS. The rule also makes adjustments (accounting for 1 percent of the gross reduction) due to the use of new time of care assumptions for intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT). Although the reductions in time of care assumptions alone would have resulted in a gross 7 percent reduction to radiation oncology as we identified in the proposed rule, CMS in its final rule included updated cost data submitted by the radiation oncology community for code inputs which reversed the vast majority of the reduction

resulting from the new time of care assumptions. Total gross reductions in the final rule are offset by a 2 percent increase due to certain other revised radiation oncology codes, which results in a total net reduction to radiation oncology of 7 percent.

In addition, the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction ("JSC") was created under the Budget Control Act of 2011 and signed into law on August 2, 2011. Under the law, unless the JSC could achieve $1.2 trillion in savings, an across-the-board sequestration would occur on January 2, 2013, and each subsequent year through 2021, to achieve $1.2 trillion in savings. On November 21, 2011, the JSC released a statement indicating the committee would be unable to reach agreement, thereby clearing the way for the sequestration process. Unless Congress acts to reverse the cuts, Medicare providers would be cut under the sequestration process by 2 percent each year relative to baseline spending through 2021. On January 2, 2013, the President signed the American Taxpayer Relief Act, which extended the sequestration order required under the Budget Control Act until March 1, 2013. On March 1, 2013, President Obama issued the required sequestration order and, pursuant to 2 U.S.C. 906, the 2 percent Medicare sequester is scheduled to take effect for payments starting on April 1, 2013.

Commercial sources include private health insurance as well as related payments for co-insurance and co-payments. We enter into contracts with private health insurance and other health benefit groups by granting discounts to such organizations in return for the patient volume they provide.

Most of our commercial revenue is from managed care business and is attributable to contracts where a set fee is negotiated relative to services provided by our treatment centers. We do not have any contracts that individually represent over 10% of our total net patient service revenue. We receive our managed care contracted revenue under two primary arrangements. Approximately 99% of our managed care business is attributable to contracts where a fee schedule is negotiated for services provided at our treatment centers. Approximately 1% of our net patient service revenue is attributable to contracts where we bear utilization risk. Although the terms and conditions of our managed care contracts vary considerably, they are typically for a one-year term and provide for automatic renewals. If payments by managed care organizations and other private third-party payers decrease, then our total revenues and net income would decrease.

Self pay consists of payments for treatments by patients not otherwise covered by third-party payers, such as government or commercial sources. Because the incidence of cancer is much higher in those over the age of 65, most of our patients have access to Medicare or other insurance and

therefore the self-pay portion of our business is less than it would be in other circumstances. However, we are seeing a general increase in the patient responsibility portion of our claims and revenue.

We grant a discount on gross charges to self pay payers not covered under other third party payer arrangements. The discount amounts are excluded from patient service revenue. To the extent that we realize additional losses resulting from nonpayment of the discounted charges, such additional losses are included in the provision for doubtful accounts.

Other material factors that we believe will also impact our future financial performance include:

The following summary results of operations data are qualified in their entirety by reference to, and should be read in conjunction with, our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes and our audited consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, and other financial information included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

For the year ended December 31, 2012, our total revenues grew by approximately 7.6%, over the prior year, while our total revenues for the year ended December 31, 2011 grew by approximately 18.5% over the prior year. For the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, we had total revenues of $694.0 million, $644.7 million and $544.0 million, respectively.

For the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, net patient service revenue comprised 98.9%, 99.1% and 98.5%, respectively, of our total revenues. In states where we employ radiation oncologists, we derive our net patient service revenue through fees earned from the provision of the professional and technical component fees of radiation therapy services. In states where we do not employ radiation oncologists, we derive our administrative services fees principally from administrative services agreements with professional corporations. As of December 31, 2012, we employed the physicians in 88 of our treatment centers and operated pursuant to administrative services agreements in 38 of our treatment centers. In accordance with ASC 810, we consolidate the operating results of certain of the professional corporations for which we provide administrative services into our own operating results. In 2012, 2011 and 2010, 19.4%, 18.0% and 22.1%, respectively, of our net patient service revenue was generated by professional corporations with which we have administrative services agreements.

In our net patient service revenue for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, revenue from the professional-only component of radiation therapy and revenue from our ICC physician practices, comprised approximately 28.7%, 25.8%, and 26.4%, respectively, of our total revenues.

For the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, other revenue comprised approximately 1.1%, 0.9% and 1.5%, respectively, of our total revenues. Other revenue is primarily derived from management services provided to hospital radiation therapy departments, technical services provided to hospital radiation therapy departments, billing services provided to non-affiliated physicians, gain and losses from sale/disposal of medical equipment, equity interest in net earnings/losses of unconsolidated joint ventures and income for equipment leased by joint venture entities.

The following table summarizes key operating statistics of our results of operations for the periods presented:

	Year Ended December 31,									Year Ended December 31,

Domestic U.S.	2010*			2011*			% Change			2011*			2012			% Change
Number of treatment days		254			255						255			255
Total RVU's—freestanding centers		10,613,973			11,986,768			12.9	%		11,986,768			11,483,600			(4.2	)%
RVU's per day—freestanding centers		41,787			47,007			12.5	%		47,007			45,034			(4.2	)%
Percentage change in RVU's per day—freestanding centers—same practice basis		(0.4	)%		10.5	%					10.5	%		(6.3	)%
Total treatments—freestanding centers		457,845			473,400			3.4	%		473,400			493,330			4.2	%
Treatments per day—freestanding centers		1,803			1,856			3.0	%		1,856			1,935			4.2	%
Percentage change in revenue per treatment—freestanding centers—same practice basis		(5.6	)%		2.8	%					2.8	%		(3.9	)%
Percentage change in treatments per day—freestanding centers—same practice basis		1.4	%		1.0	%					1.0	%		2.0	%
Number of regions at period end (global)		8			9						9			9

Number of local markets at period end		28			28						28			28

Treatment centers—freestanding (global)		89			118			32.6	%		118			121			2.5	%
Treatment centers—hospital / other groups (global)		6			9			50.0	%		9			5			(44.4	)%

		95			127			33.7	%		127			126			(0.8	)%

Days sales outstanding at quarter end		41			39						39			34
Percentage change in freestanding revenues—same practice basis		(4.6	)%		4.2	%					4.2	%		(2.1	)%
Net patient service revenue—professional services only (in thousands)	$	143,487		$	166,090					$	166,090		$	199,097

The following table summarizes key operating statistics of our results of operations for our international operations for the periods presented:

Medical Developers' total service revenues was $20.8 million for the three months ended December 31, 2012 which represents a $0.5 million or 2.5% increase from the $20.3 million for the same period in 2011. Total revenue was positively impacted by $1.0 million of revenue from the acquisition of four radiation treatment facilities in November 2011 the start-up of a new Center in Argentina during the third quarter, growth in treatments and an improvement in treatment mix in Costa Rica, Mexico and Guatemala, mitigated by a reduction in IMRT treatments in Argentina compared to the same period in 2011 and decreased activity in December due to timing of holidays in many countries where we operate. In addition, we experienced growth in the number of new cases initiated during the quarter by 180, 54% of which pertained to the acquired operations in November 2011. The trend toward more clinically-advanced cases continued during the quarter with an increase in the number of higher-revenue 3D treatments vs. 2D treatments as compared to the same period in 2011.

Facility gross profit decreased $0.7 million, or 6.1% from $10.9 million to $10.2 million for the three months ended December 31, 2012 as compared to the same period in 2011. Facility-level gross profit as a percentage of total revenues decreased from 53.7% to 49.2%. Lower IMRT cases in Argentina, increases in compensation, facility rent, and incremental depreciation expense relating to our continued growth and investment in Latin America, as well as local inflation was offset by decreases in medical supplies and other operating costs, including lower outsourcing of scans as a result of recent equipment purchases.

MDLLC's net patient service revenue increased $2.6 million, or 14.7%, from $17.7 million to $20.3 million for the three months ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the three months ended September 30, 2011. Total revenue was positively impacted by $1.0 million of revenue from the acquisition of four radiation treatment facilities in November 2011, and the opening of new treatment centers in San Juan, Argentina and San Salvador, El Salvador in February and March 2011, respectively. The continued ramp-up in operations at our Centro de Radiaciones de La Costa and Centro de Radioterapia Siglo XXI subsidiaries in Argentina which opened in May and July 2010, respectively also favorably impacted revenue growth. In addition, we experienced growth in the number of new cases initiated during the quarter by 233 versus the September quarter and 448 versus the prior year's quarter, of which 250 pertained to the acquired operations in November 2011. The trend toward more clinically-advanced treatments continued during the quarter with an increase in the number of higher-revenue 3D and IMRT treatments.

Facility gross profit increased $0.9 million, or 9.0% from $10.0 million to $10.9 million for the three months ended December 31, 2011 as compared to the three months ended September 30, 2011. Facility-level gross profit as a percentage of net patient service revenue decreased to 53.7% from 56.5%, primarily due to an increase in physician compensation, incremental depreciation expense relating to our continued growth and investment in Latin America, facility rent expense, and expenses from the outsourcing of scans.

The following table presents summaries of results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 (dollars in thousands). This information has been derived from the consolidated statements of income and comprehensive income included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

	Years Ended December 31,

(in thousands):	2010					2011					2012
Revenues:
Net patient service revenue	$	535,913		98.5	%	$	638,690		99.1	%	$	686,216		98.9	%
Other revenue		8,050		1.5			6,027		0.9			7,735		1.1

Total revenues		543,963		100.0			644,717		100.0			693,951		100.0
Salaries and benefits		282,302		51.9			326,782		50.7			372,656		53.7
Medical supplies		43,027		7.9			51,838		8.0			61,589		8.9
Facility rent expenses		27,885		5.1			33,375		5.2			39,802		5.7
Other operating expenses		27,103		5.0			33,992		5.3			38,988		5.6
General and administrative expenses		65,798		12.1			81,688		12.7			82,236		11.9
Depreciation and amortization		46,346		8.5			54,084		8.4			64,893		9.4
Provision for doubtful accounts		8,831		1.6			16,117		2.5			16,916		2.4
Interest expense, net		58,505		10.8			60,656		9.4			77,494		11.2
Electronic health records incentive income		—		—			—		—			(2,256	)	(0.3	)
Loss on sale of assets of a radiation treatment center		1,903		0.3			—		—			—		—
Early extinguishment of debt		10,947		2.0			—		—			4,473		0.6
Fair value adjustment of earn-out liability and noncontrolling interests-redeemable		—		—			—		—			1,219		0.2
Impairment loss		97,916		18.0			360,639		55.9			81,021		11.7
Loss on investments		—		—			250		—			—		—
Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment		—		—			(234	)	—			—		—
Loss on foreign currency transactions		—		—			106		—			339		—
Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts		—		—			672		0.1			1,165		0.2

Total expenses		670,563		123.2			1,019,965		158.2			840,535		121.2
Loss before income taxes		(126,600	)	(23.2	)		(375,248	)	(58.2	)		(146,584	)	(21.2	)
Income tax expense (benefit)		(12,810	)	(2.4	)		(25,365	)	(3.9	)		4,545		0.7

Net loss		(113,790	)	(20.8	)		(349,883	)	(54.3	)		(151,129	)	(21.9	)
Net income attributable to non-controlling interest		(1,698	)	(0.3	)		(3,558	)	(0.6	)		(3,079	)	(0.4	)

Net loss attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder	$	(115,488	)	(21.1	)%	$	(353,441	)	(54.9	)%	$	(154,208	)	(22.3	)%

Total revenues. Total revenues increased by $49.3 million, or 7.6%, from $644.7 million in 2011 to $694.0 million in 2012. Total revenue was positively impacted by $80.2 million due to our expansion into new practices and treatments centers in existing local markets and new local markets during 2011 and 2012 through the acquisition of several urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and the acquisition of physician radiation practices in California, Florida, North Carolina and the acquisition of 30 physician practices in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean, the opening of two de novo centers and an outpatient radiation therapy management services agreement with a medical group to manage its radiation oncology treatment site and two hospital professional services arrangements transitioned to freestanding as follows:

Date		Location	Market	Type

March 2011	26	Latin America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean	International	Acquisition
June 2011	1	London, Kentucky	Central Kentucky	Hospital-based / other groups
August 2011	1	Andalusia, Alabama	Southeastern Alabama	De Novo
August 2011	1	Redding, California	Northern California	Acquisition
September 2011	2	Broward County—Florida	Broward County—Florida	Hospital-based / other groups
November 2011	4	Latin America	International	Acquisition
December 2011	2	Goldsboro and Sampson, North Carolina	Eastern North Carolina	Acquisition
February 2012	1	Asheville, North Carolina	Western North Carolina	Acquisition
March 2012	2	Broward County—Florida	Broward County—Florida	Transition from Hospital-based to freestanding
March 2012	1	Lakewood Ranch—Florida	Sarasota/Manatee Counties—Florida	Acquisition
August 2012	1	Latin America	International (Argentina)	De Novo

Revenue from CMS for the 2012 PQRI program decreased approximately $1.3 million and revenues in our existing local markets and practices decreased by approximately $29.6 million, including a $5.2 million reduction relating to non-renewal of the capitated contracts in our Las Vegas, Nevada market. The decrease in revenue in our existing local markets is predominately due to the reductions in RVUs for many of our treatment codes effective with the 2012 physician fee schedule and treatment declines for prostate cancer as a result of the slowing rate of men diagnosed and referred to treatment regimens, as a result of the Preventative Services Task Force report issued in May 2012 recommending against routine PSA screenings for healthy men, as well as suggested changes in treatment pattern for low risk prostate cancer away from definitive treatment. The decrease was partially offset by increased managed care pricing and organic growth. We continue to see stable patient volumes for the period and our percentage increase in treatments per day at our freestanding centers on a same practice basis (excluding the impact of the termination of a capitated contract in Las Vegas, Nevada) was 2.0%.

Salaries and benefits. Salaries and benefits increased by $45.9 million, or 14.0%, from $326.8 million in 2011 to $372.7 million in 2012. Salaries and benefits as a percentage of total revenues increased from 50.7% in 2011 to 53.7% in 2012. Additional staffing of personnel and physicians due to our development and expansion in urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing local markets during the latter part of 2011 and 2012, and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011 contributed $44.3 million to our salaries and benefits. In June 2012, we implemented a new equity-incentive plan, which increased stock compensation by approximately

$1.8 million. For existing practices and centers within our local markets, salaries and benefits decreased $0.2 million due to decreases in our compensation arrangements with certain radiation oncologists offset by increased salaries related to our physician liaison program and the expansion of our senior management team.

Medical supplies. Medical supplies increased by $9.8 million, or 18.8%, from $51.8 million in 2011 to $61.6 million in 2012. Medical supplies as a percentage of total revenues increased from 8.0% in 2011 to 8.9% in 2012. Medical supplies consist of chemotherapy-related drugs and other medical supplies, patient positioning devices, radioactive seed supplies, supplies used for other brachytherapy services, pharmaceuticals used in the delivery of radiation therapy treatments. Approximately $8.0 million of the increase was related to our development and expansion in urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing local markets during the latter part of 2011 and 2012, and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. In our remaining practices and centers in existing local markets, medical supplies increased by approximately $1.8 million as we continue to see stable patient volumes and treatment counts in our existing local markets. These pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy medical supplies are principally reimbursable by third-party payers.

Facility rent expenses. Facility rent expenses increased by $6.4 million, or 19.3%, from $33.4 million in 2011 to $39.8 million in 2012. Facility rent expenses as a percentage of total revenues increased from 5.2% in 2011 to 5.7% in 2012. Facility rent expenses consist of rent expense associated with our treatment center locations. Approximately $5.7 million of the increase was related to our development and expansion in urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing local markets during the latter part of 2011 and 2012, and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. In March 2012 we paid approximately $0.4 million to terminate a lease for our Beverly Hills, California office we closed in March 2011. Facility rent expense in our remaining practices and centers in existing local markets increased by approximately $0.3 million.

Other operating expenses. Other operating expenses increased by $5.0 million or 14.7%, from $34.0 million in 2011 to $39.0 million in 2012. Other operating expense as a percentage of total revenues increased from 5.3% in 2011 to 5.6% in 2012. Other operating expenses consist of repairs and maintenance of equipment, equipment rental and contract labor. Approximately $4.7 million of the increase was related to our development and expansion in urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing local markets during the latter part of 2011 and 2012, and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011, and an increase of approximately $0.3 million in our remaining practices and centers in existing local markets.

General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses increased by $0.5 million or 0.7%, from $81.7 million in 2011 to $82.2 million in 2012. General and administrative expenses principally consist of professional service fees, office supplies and expenses, insurance and travel costs. General and administrative expenses as a percentage of total revenues decreased from 12.7% in 2011 to 11.9% in 2012. The increase of $0.5 million in general and administrative expenses was due to an increase of approximately $6.3 million relating to our development and expansion in urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing local markets during the latter part of 2011 and 2012, and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. In addition there was an increase of approximately $0.8 million related to expenses for consulting services for the CMS 2013 preliminary physician fee schedule, an increase of approximately $0.9 million in litigation settlements with certain physicians, offset by a decrease of approximately $2.4 million in diligence costs relating to acquisitions and potential acquisitions of physician practices, a decrease of approximately $0.3 million associated

with improvements in our income tax provision process and a decrease of approximately $4.8 million in our remaining practices and treatments centers in our existing local markets.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased by $10.8 million, or 20.0%, from $54.1 million in 2011 to $64.9 million in 2012. Depreciation and amortization expense as a percentage of total revenues increased from 8.4% in 2011 to 9.4% in 2012. The increase of $10.8 million in depreciation and amortization was due to an increase of approximately $4.9 million relating to our development and expansion in urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing local markets during the latter part of 2011 and 2012, and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. An increase in capital expenditures related to our investment in advanced radiation treatment technologies increased our depreciation and amortization by approximately $3.3 million and $2.8 million increase due to the amortization of our trade name offset by a decrease of approximately $0.2 million predominately due to the expiration of certain non-compete agreements.

Provision for doubtful accounts. The provision for doubtful accounts increased by $0.8 million, or 5.0%, from $16.1 million in 2011 to $16.9 million in 2012. The provision for doubtful accounts as a percentage of total revenues decreased from 2.5% in 2011 to 2.4% in 2012. In 2012 we reduced our provision for doubtful accounts as we made progress in improving the overall collection process, including centralization of the prior authorization process, with standardization process supporting peer to peer justification of medical necessity, improvements in payment posting timeliness, electronic submission of documentation to Medicare carriers, Medicaid eligibility retro scrubbing of self pay patients, automated insurance rebilling, focused escalation process for claims in Medical Review with insurers, collector productivity and quality tracking and monitoring, and improved processes at the treatment centers to collect co-pay amounts at the time of service. These actions have resulted in improved collections and lower bad debt expense as a percentage of total revenues in 2012.

Interest expense, net. Interest expense, increased by $16.8 million, or 27.8%, from $60.7 million in 2011 to $77.5 million in 2012. The increase is primarily attributable to an increase of approximately $14.7 million of interest as a result the additional senior subordinated notes issued in March 2011 of approximately $50.0 million, the issuance of the senior secured second lien notes issued in May 2012 of approximately $350.0 million and additional capital lease financing and the additional amortization of deferred financing costs and original issue discount costs of approximately $0.9 million related thereto, the write-off of loan costs of approximately $0.5 million and approximately $1.1 million of interest related to international debt, offset by a decrease in our interest rate swap expense of approximately $0.4 million.

Electronic health records incentive income. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of 2009 provides for incentive payments for Medicare eligible professionals who are meaningful users of certified EHR technology. We account for EHR incentive payments utilizing the grant accounting model. Pursuant to the grant accounting model, we recognize EHR incentive payments when it is reasonably assured that we have complied with Medicare's meaningful use requirements and the EHR incentives will be received. For the year ended December 31, 2012 we recognized approximately $2.3 million of EHR revenues.

Early extinguishment of debt. We incurred approximately $4.5 million from the early extinguishment of debt as a result of the prepayment of the $265.4 million in senior secured credit facility—Term Loan B and prepayment of $63.0 million in senior secured credit facility—Revolving credit portion, which included the write-offs of $3.7 million in deferred financing costs and $0.8 million in original issue discount costs.

Fair value adjustment of earn-out liability and noncontrolling interests-redeemable. On March 1, 2011, we purchased the remaining 67% interest in MDLLC from Bernardo Dosoretz as well as interests in

the subsidiaries of MDLLC from Alejandro Dosoretz and Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of approximately 91% in the underlying radiation oncology practices located in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. We also purchased an additional 61% interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A. from Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of 80%. The Company recorded an estimated contingent earn out payment totaling $2.3 million at the time of the closing of these acquisitions. The earn out payment is contingent upon certain acquired centers attaining earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization targets, is due 18 months subsequent to the transaction closing, and is payable through Company financing and issuance of equity units. At December 31, 2012, we estimated the fair value of the contingent earn out liability and increased the liability due to the seller to approximately $3.4 million. We recorded the $1.1 million to expense in the fair value adjustment caption in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

On November 4, 2011, we purchased an 80% interest in an operating entity, which operates 1 radiation treatment center in Argentina; an 80% interest in another operating entity, which operates 3 radiation treatment centers in Argentina; and a 96% interest in an operating entity, which operates 1 radiation treatment center in Argentina. In November 2012, we exercised our purchase option to purchase the remaining interest for approximately $1.4 million and recorded the adjustment of $0.2 million to the purchase option as an expense in the fair value adjustment of the noncontrolling interests-redeemable in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

Impairment loss. During the third quarter of 2012, we completed an interim impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets as a result of our review of growth expectations and the release of the final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2013 by CMS on November 1, 2012, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers as well as the changes in treatment patterns and volumes in prostate cancer as a result of the slowing rate of men diagnosed and referred to treatment regimens, as a result of the Preventative Services Task Force report issued in May 2012 recommending against routine PSA screenings for healthy men, as well as suggested changes in treatment pattern for low risk prostate cancer away from definitive treatment. In performing this test, we assessed the implied fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets. As a result, we recorded an impairment loss of approximately $69.9 million during the third quarter of 2012 primarily relating to goodwill impairment in certain of our reporting units, including Mid East United States (Northwest Florida, North Carolina, Southeast Alabama, South Carolina), Central South East United States (Delmarva Peninsula, Central Maryland, Central Kentucky, South New Jersey), California, South West United States (central Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada), and Southwest Florida of approximately $69.8 million. In addition, during the third quarter of 2012, an impairment loss of approximately $0.1 million was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements of a planned radiation treatment facility office relocation in Monroe, Michigan in the Northeast U.S. region.

During the fourth quarter of 2012, we completed our annual impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets. In performing this test, we assessed the implied fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets. As a result, we recorded an impairment loss of approximately $11.1 million during the fourth quarter of 2012 primarily relating to goodwill impairment in certain of our reporting units, including Central South East United States (Delmarva Peninsula, Central Maryland, Central Kentucky, South New Jersey), and Southwest Florida of approximately $10.8 million. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2012, an impairment loss of approximately $0.1 million was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements in the Delmarva Peninsula local market and approximately $0.2 million related to a consolidated joint venture in the Central Maryland local market.

During the third quarter of 2011, we completed an interim impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets as a result of our review of growth expectations and the release of the

final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2012 by CMS on November 1, 2011, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers. In performing this test, we assessed the implied fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets. As a result, we incurred an impairment loss of approximately $237.6 million in 2011 primarily relating to goodwill and trade name impairment in certain of our reporting units, including North East United States (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), California, Southwest U.S. (Arizona and Nevada) , the Florida east coast, Northwest Florida and Southwest Florida of approximately $234.9 million and an impairment loss incurred of approximately $2.7 million in 2011 related to our write-off of our 45% investment interest in a radio-surgery center in Rhode Island due to continued operating losses since its inception in 2008.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, we decided to rebrand our current trade name of 21st Century Oncology. As a result of the rebranding initiative and concurrent with our annual impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets, we incurred an impairment loss of approximately $121.6 million. Approximately $49.8 million of the $121.6 million related to the trade name impairment as a result of our rebranding initiative. The remaining $71.8 million of impairment related to goodwill in certain of our reporting units, including North East United States (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), California and Southwest U.S. (Arizona and Nevada). The remaining domestic U.S. trade name of approximately $4.6 million will be amortized over its remaining useful life through December 31, 2012. We incurred approximately $0.9 million in amortization expense during the fourth quarter. In addition, we impaired certain deposits on equipment of approximately $0.7 million and $0.8 million in leasehold improvements relating to a planned radiation treatment facility office closing in Baltimore, Maryland.

Loss on investments. During the fourth quarter of 2011, we incurred a loss on our 50% investment in an unconsolidated joint venture in a freestanding radiation facility in West Palm Beach, Florida of approximately $0.5 million. The loss on our investment in the joint venture was offset by a gain on the sale of an investment in a primary care physician practice of approximately $0.3 million. Proceeds from the sale of the investment was approximately $1.0 million.

Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment. As result of the acquisition of MDLLC, in which we acquired an effective ownership interest of approximately 91.0% on March 1, 2011, we recorded a gain of approximately $0.2 million to adjust our initial investment in the joint venture to fair value.

Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts. We are exposed to a significant amount of foreign exchange risk, primarily between the U.S. dollar and the Argentine Peso. This exposure relates to the provision of radiation oncology services to patients at our Latin American operations and purchases of goods and services in foreign currencies. We maintain four foreign currency derivative contracts which mature on a quarterly basis. In 2012 and 2011, the expiration of the December 28, 2012 foreign currency derivative contract and the mark to market valuation of the remaining contracts resulted in a loss of approximately $1.2 million and $0.7 million, respectively.

Income taxes. Our effective tax rate was (3.1)% in fiscal 2012 and 6.8% in fiscal 2011. The change in the effective rate in 2012 compared to the same period of the year prior is primarily the result of the reduction of the deferred tax liability on the amount of goodwill and trade name impaired in the third quarter of 2011, the 2012 benefit related to the termination of the interest rate swap, the 2012 accrual of US Federal penalties and interest proposed by the IRS related to the 2007-2008 examination, the 2011 benefit for the release of certain state reserves, our application of ASC 740-270 to exclude certain jurisdictions (U.S. and certain states) for which we are unable to benefit from losses that are not more likely than not to be realized and the mix of earnings and tax rates across various tax jurisdictions. As a result, on an absolute dollar basis, the expense for income taxes changed by $29.9 million from the income tax benefit of $25.4 million in 2011 to an income tax expense of $4.5 million in 2012.

Our future effective tax rates could be affected by changes in the relative mix of taxable income and taxable loss jurisdictions, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets or liabilities, or changes in tax laws or interpretations thereof. We monitor the assumptions used in estimating the annual effective tax rate and make adjustments, if required, throughout the year. If actual results differ from the assumptions used in estimating our annual effective tax rates, future income tax expense (benefit) could be materially affected.

Net loss. Net loss decreased by $198.8 million, from $349.9 million in net loss in 2011 to $151.1 million net loss in 2012. Net loss represents 54.3% of total revenues in 2011 and 21.9% of total revenues in 2012.

Total revenues. Total revenues increased by $100.7 million, or 18.5%, from $544.0 million in 2010 to $644.7 million in 2011. Total revenue was positively impacted by $98.7 million due to our expansion into new practices and treatments centers in existing local markets and new local markets during 2010 and 2011 through the acquisition of several urology, medical oncology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina and the acquisition of physician radiation practices in California, North Carolina, South Carolina and West Virginia and the acquisition of 30 physician practices in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean, the opening of three de novo centers and an outpatient radiation therapy management services agreement with a medical group to manage its radiation oncology treatment site and two hospital professional services arrangements as follows:

Date		Location	Market	Type

March 2010	1	El Segundo, California	Los Angeles, California	De Novo
May 2010	1	Pembroke Pines, Florida	Broward County—Florida	De Novo
May 2010	1	Myrtle Beach, South Carolina	South Carolina	Acquisition
December 2010	1	Princeton West Virginia	Central Maryland	Acquisition
March 2011	26	South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean	International	Acquisition
June 2011	1	London, Kentucky	Central Kentucky	Hospital-based / other groups
August 2011	1	Andalusia, Alabama	Southeastern Alabama	De Novo
August 2011	1	Redding, California	Northern California	Acquisition
September 2011	2	Broward County—Florida	Broward County—Florida	Hospital-based / other groups
November 2011	4	South America	International	Acquisition
December 2011	2	Goldsboro and Sampson, North Carolina	Eastern North Carolina	Acquisition

Revenue from CMS for the 2011 PQRI program decreased approximately $2.5 million offset by an increase in our existing local markets and practices by approximately $4.5 million, net of a $1.6 million reduction relating to non-renewal of the capitated contracts in our Las Vegas, Nevada market.

Salaries and benefits. Salaries and benefits increased by $44.5 million, or 15.8%, from $282.3 million in 2010 to $326.8 million in 2011. Salaries and benefits as a percentage of total revenues decreased from 51.9% in 2010 to 50.7% in 2011. Additional staffing of personnel and physicians due to

our expansion in urology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing and new local markets during the latter part of 2010 and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011 contributed $46.8 million to our salaries and benefits. Stock compensation expense included in our salaries and benefits increased $0.4 million as a result of a repurchase of vested units from an executive for use in future reissuance to other executives. For existing practices and centers within our local markets, salaries and benefits decreased $3.6 million, predominately related to our cost reduction program implemented during the third quarter of 2011 offset by additional staffing in our research and development group developing software for our medical equipment of approximately $0.9 million.

Medical supplies. Medical supplies increased by $8.8 million, or 20.5%, from $43.0 million in 2010 to $51.8 million in 2011. Medical supplies as a percentage of total revenues increased from 7.9% in 2010 to 8.0% in 2011. Medical supplies consist of patient positioning devices, radioactive seed supplies, supplies used for other brachytherapy services, pharmaceuticals used in the delivery of radiation therapy treatments and chemotherapy-related and other medical supplies. Approximately $4.9 million of the increase was related to our expansion in urology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing and new local markets during the latter part of 2010 and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. In our remaining practices and centers in existing local markets, medical supplies increased by approximately $3.9 million as we continue to see stable and improving patient volumes and treatment counts in our existing local markets. These pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy medical supplies are principally reimbursable by third-party payers.

Facility rent expenses. Facility rent expenses increased by $5.5 million, or 19.7%, from $27.9 million in 2010 to $33.4 million in 2011. Facility rent expenses as a percentage of total revenues increased from 5.1% in 2010 to 5.2% in 2011. Facility rent expenses consist of rent expense associated with our treatment center locations. Approximately $3.5 million of the increase was related to our expansion in urology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing and new local markets during the latter part of 2010 and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. On March 31, 2010, the related party lessors completed the refinancing of certain of their respective mortgages to remove the personal guarantees of the debt related thereto. As a result of the refinancing of the landlords' mortgages on these respective properties, we derecognized approximately $64.8 million in real estate subject to finance obligation. As a result of the derecognition, our facility rent expense increased by approximately $2.0 million in 2011.

Other operating expenses. Other operating expenses increased by $6.9 million or 25.4%, from $27.1 million in 2010 to $34.0 million in 2011. Other operating expense as a percentage of total revenues increased from 5.0% in 2010 to 5.3% in 2011. Other operating expenses consist of repairs and maintenance of equipment, equipment rental and contract labor. Approximately $8.4 million of the increase was related to our expansion in urology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing and new local markets during the latter part of 2010 and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011, offset by a decrease of approximately $1.5 million in our remaining practices and centers in existing local markets, primarily as a result of a decrease in operating leases on certain of our medical equipment and contract labor for radiation therapists.

General and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses increased by $15.9 million or 24.1%, from $65.8 million in 2010 to $81.7 million in 2011. General and administrative expenses principally consist of professional service fees, office supplies and expenses, insurance and travel costs. General and administrative expenses as a percentage of total revenues increased from 12.1% in 2010 to 12.7% in 2011. The increase of $15.9 million in general and administrative expenses

was due to an increase of approximately $9.6 million relating to our expansion in urology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing and new local markets during the latter part of 2010 and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. An increase of approximately $4.8 million in our remaining practices and treatments centers in our existing local markets, an increase of approximately $1.3 million in diligence costs relating to acquisitions and potential acquisitions of physician practices, an increase in costs of $0.7 million associated with improvements in our income tax provision process offset by a decrease of approximately $0.5 million in litigation settlements with certain physicians.

Depreciation and amortization. Depreciation and amortization increased by $7.7 million, or 16.7%, from $46.3 million in 2010 to $54.1 million in 2011. Depreciation and amortization expense as a percentage of total revenues decreased from 8.5% in 2010 to 8.4% in 2011. The increase of $7.7 million in depreciation and amortization was primarily due to an increase of approximately $4.4 million relating to our expansion in urology and surgery practices in Arizona, California, Florida, North Carolina and South Carolina, the acquisitions of treatment centers in existing and new local markets during the latter part of 2010 and the expansion into a new region internationally in 2011. An increase in capital expenditures related to our investment in advanced radiation treatment technologies in certain local markets increased our depreciation and amortization by approximately $4.3 million, $0.9 million increase due to the amortization of our trade name offset by a decrease of approximately $1.5 million predominately due to the expiration of certain non-compete agreements. On March 31, 2010, we derecognized approximately $64.8 million in real estate subject to finance obligation. As a result of the derecognition, our depreciation and amortization expense decreased by approximately $0.4 million.

Provision for doubtful accounts. The provision for doubtful accounts increased by $7.3 million, or 82.5%, from $8.8 million in 2010 to $16.1 million in 2011. The provision for doubtful accounts as a percentage of total revenues increased from 1.6% in 2010 to 2.5% in 2011. In 2010 we reduced our provision for doubtful accounts as we made efforts to improve the overall collection process, including a replacement of our claims clearinghouse agent, to provide more efficient and timely claims processing, upgraded certain billing processes, including the electronic transmission of secondary claims and improved processes at the treatment centers to collect co-pay amounts at the time of service. These actions have resulted in improved collections and lower bad debt expense in 2010.

Interest expense, net. Interest expense, increased by $2.2 million, or 3.7%, from $58.5 million in 2010 to $60.7 million in 2011. The increase is primarily attributable to an increase of approximately $7.2 million of interest and fees as a result of the additional senior subordinated notes issued in April 2010 and March 2011 and the additional amortization of deferred financing costs and original issue discount cost of approximately $1.2 million related thereto, and approximately $0.2 million of interest related to international debt, offset by the decrease of approximately $2.1 million in interest expense in 2010 associated with the pro-rata write-off of our deferred financing costs and original issue discount costs resulting from our prepayment of $74.8 million in our Term Loan B in April 2010, the derecognition of approximately $64.8 million in real estate subject to finance obligation on March 31, 2010. As a result of the derecognition, our interest expense relating to the finance obligation decreased by approximately $1.4 million. In addition, our interest rate swap payments decreased by approximately $2.9 million.

Loss on sale of assets of a radiation treatment center. In January 2007, we acquired a 67.5% interest in Gettysburg Radiation, LLC ("GR"), which at that time was in the final stages of developing a free-standing radiation therapy treatment center in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. Approximately a year later, GR expanded its operations to a second location in Littlestown, Pennsylvania. Due to the poor local economy, as well as the opening of a radiation therapy center by a nearby hospital, the performance of both the Gettysburg and Littlestown facilities deteriorated significantly. During the

fourth quarter of 2009, the Littlestown facility was closed. On April 30, 2010, we sold certain assets of the Gettysburg facility to one of GR's minority equity-holders for approximately $925,000 and incurred a loss on the sale of approximately $1.9 million.

Early extinguishment of debt. In 2010 we incurred approximately $10.9 million from the early extinguishment of debt as a result of the prepayment of the $175.0 million in senior subordinated notes, which included the call premium payment of approximately $5.3 million, the write-offs of $2.5 million in deferred financing costs and $3.1 million in original issue discount costs.

Impairment loss. During the third quarter of 2011, we completed an interim impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets as a result of our review of growth expectations and the release of the final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2012 by CMS on November 1, 2011, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers. In performing this test, we assessed the implied fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets. During the third quarter of 2011 we incurred an impairment loss of approximately $237.6 million primarily relating to goodwill and trade name impairment in certain of our reporting units, including North East United States (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), California, Southwest U.S. (Arizona and Nevada), the Florida east coast, Northwest Florida and Southwest Florida of approximately $234.9 million and an impairment loss incurred of approximately $2.7 million in 2011 related to our write-off of our 45% investment interest in a radiosurgery center in Rhode Island due to continued operating losses since its inception in 2008.

Loss on investments. During the fourth quarter of 2011, we incurred a loss on our 50% investment in an unconsolidated joint venture in a freestanding radiation facility in West Palm Beach Florida of approximately $0.5 million. The loss on our investment in the joint venture was offset by a gain on the sale of an investment in a primary care physician practice of approximately $0.3 million. Proceeds from the sale of the investment was approximately $1.0 million.

Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts. We are exposed to a significant amount of foreign exchange risk, primarily between the U.S. dollar and the Argentine peso. This exposure relates to the provision of radiation oncology services to patients at our Latin American operations and purchases of goods and services in foreign currencies. We maintain four forward currency derivative contracts which mature on a quarterly basis. In 2011, the expiration of four forward currency derivative contracts and the mark to market valuation of the remaining contracts resulted in a loss of approximately $0.7 million.

Income taxes. Our effective tax rate was 6.8% in fiscal 2011 and 10.1% in fiscal 2010. The decrease in the benefit reflected in the effective tax rate in the 2011 calendar year is primarily the result of goodwill impairment recognized in the 2011 calendar year which is not deductible for tax purposes, the increase in the valuation allowance against federal and state deferred tax assets and adjustments to deferred income tax items and unrecognized tax positions that were recorded in the 2011 calendar year. The income tax benefit of $25.4 million in 2011 compared to an income tax benefit of $12.8 million in 2010, represents an increase of $12.6 million on an absolute dollar basis.

In addition, we are periodically under audit by federal, state, or local authorities in the areas of income taxes and other taxes. These audits include questioning the timing and amount of deductions and compliance with federal, state, and local tax laws. We regularly assess the likelihood of adverse outcomes from these audits to determine the adequacy of our provision for income taxes. To the extent we prevail in matters for which accruals have been established or is required to pay amounts in excess of such accruals, the effective tax rate could be materially affected. We are currently undergoing a Federal income tax audit for tax years 2007 through 2008 and New York State audit for tax years 2006 through 2008. Subsequent to the end of the year, we closed the Federal audit for tax years 2005 through 2008, the Alabama audit for tax years 2009 and 2010, the Florida audit for tax years 2007 through 2009 and the New York audit for the tax years 2006 through 2008.

Net loss. Net loss increased by $236.1 million, from $113.8 million in net loss in 2010 to $349.9 million net loss in 2011 primarily as a result of the impairment loss incurred for the write down of goodwill, trade name and other investments of approximately $360.6 million. Net loss represents 20.8% of total revenues in 2010 and 54.3% of total revenues in 2011.

Our principal capital requirements are for working capital, acquisitions, medical equipment replacement and expansion and de novo treatment center development. Working capital and medical equipment are funded through cash from operations, supplemented, as needed, by lease lines of credit. Borrowings under these lease lines of credit are recorded on our balance sheets. The construction of de novo treatment centers is funded directly by third parties and then leased to us. We finance our operations, capital expenditures and acquisitions through a combination of borrowings and cash generated from operations.

Net cash provided by operating activities for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012 was $49.0 million, $44.8 million and $16.1 million, respectively.

Net cash provided by operating activities decreased by $28.7 million from $44.8 million in 2011 to $16.1 million in 2012 predominately due to increased interest costs. In March 2011, we issued $50.0 million in senior subordinated notes due 2017 and $16.25 million senior subordinated notes due to the seller in the MDLLC transaction. In 2012 and 2011, we wrote-off approximately $81.0 million and $360.6 million, respectively in goodwill, trade name and other investments as a result of our interim testing of our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets. We continue to see improvements in our cash collections from our accounts receivable with our days sales outstanding improving from 39 days to 34 days.

Cash at December 31, 2012 held by our foreign operating subsidiaries was $4.6 million. We consider these cash flows to be permanently invested in our foreign operating subsidiaries and therefore do not anticipate repatriating any excess cash flows to the U.S. We anticipate we can adequately fund our domestic operations from cash flows generated solely from our U.S. business. Of the $4.6 million of cash held by our foreign operating subsidiaries at December 31, 2012, $0.4 million is held in U.S. dollars, $0.4 million of which is held at banks in the United States, with the remaining held in foreign currencies in foreign banks. We believe that the magnitude of our growth opportunities outside of the U.S. will cause us to continuously reinvest foreign earnings. We do not require access to the earnings and cash flow of our international subsidiaries to fund our U.S. operations.

Net cash provided by operating activities decreased by $4.2 million from $49.0 million in 2010 to $44.8 million in 2011 predominately due to timing and amount of interest payments. In 2011 we issued an additional $66.25 million in senior subordinated notes due 2017 with interest payments due in April and October of each year. In October 2011, we paid approximately $18.6 million of interest on the $360.0 million in senior subordinated notes due 2017 including interest on the $16.25 million senior subordinated notes due to the seller in the MDLLC transaction. In 2011, we wrote-off approximately $360.6 million in goodwill, trade name, leasehold improvements and other investments as a result of our interim testing of our goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets and our rebranding initiatives. We continue to see improvements in our cash collections from our accounts receivable with our days sales outstanding improving from 41 days to 39 days.

Cash at December 31, 2011 held by our foreign operating subsidiaries was $5.2 million. We consider these cash flows to be permanently invested in our foreign operating subsidiaries and therefore do not anticipate repatriating any excess cash flows to the U.S. We anticipate we can adequately fund our domestic operations from cash flows generated solely from our U.S. business. Of the $5.2 million of cash held by our foreign operating subsidiaries at December 31, 2011, $0.4 million is held in U.S. dollars, $0.1 million of which is held at banks in the United States, with the remaining held in foreign currencies in foreign banks.

Net cash used in investing activities for 2010, 2011, and 2012 was $92.5 million, $96.8 million, and $57.3 million, respectively.

Net cash used in investing activities decreased by $39.5 million from $96.8 million in 2011 to $57.3 million in 2012. In 2012, net cash used in investing activities was impacted by approximately $0.9 million in cash paid for the assets of a radiation oncology practice and a medical oncology group located in Asheville, North Carolina in February 2012 and approximately $21.9 million in cash paid for the assets of a radiation oncology practice and two urology groups located in Sarasota/Manatee counties in Southwest Florida in March 2012 and the purchase of affiliated integrated cancer care physician practices of approximately $1.7 million. In April 2012 we acquired certain assets utilized in one of the radiation treatment centers acquired in December 2011 located in North Carolina, which operates two radiation treatment centers for approximately $0.4 million. In December 2012, we purchased the remaining 50% interest in an unconsolidated joint venture which operates a freestanding radiation treatment center in West Palm Beach, Florida for approximately $1.0 million. On November 4, 2011, we purchased an 80% interest in an operating entity, which operates 1 radiation treatment center in Argentina; an 80% interest in another operating entity, which operates 3 radiation treatment centers in Argentina; and a 96% interest in an operating entity, which operates 1 radiation treatment center in Argentina. In November 2012, we exercised our purchase option to purchase the remaining interest for approximately $1.4 million. During 2012, we entered into foreign exchange option contracts expiring December 2013 to convert a significant portion of our forecasted foreign currency denominated net income into U.S. dollars to limit the adverse impact of a weakening Argentine Peso against the U.S. dollar. The cost of the option contracts, were approximately

$0.7 million. Purchases of property and equipment decreased by $5.9 million from $36.6 million in 2011 to $30.7 million in 2012, as we continue to manage our capital expenditures.

Net cash used in investing activities increased by $4.3 million from $92.5 million in 2010 to $96.8 million in 2011. Net cash used in investing activities was impacted by approximately $42.1 million (net of acquired cash of approximately $5.4 million) related to the purchase of the remaining (i) 67% interest in a joint venture that holds a majority equity interest in and manages 25 radiation therapy treatment centers in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean (including the purchase of equity units in the underlying operating subsidiaries) and (ii) a 61% interest in a joint venture that operates a treatment center in Guatemala, on March 1, 2011, the purchase of a radiation therapy treatment center and a physician group practice in Northern California for approximately $9.6 million and the purchase of other physician practices of approximately $0.4 million in North Carolina and Florida. Additional acquisitions during the fourth quarter of 2011 included the purchase of four radiation treatment facilities in Argentina for approximately $6.8 million including cash of approximately $2.1 million and the purchase of two radiation treatment facilities in North Carolina in December, 2011 for approximately $6.3 million. During 2011, we entered into foreign exchange option contracts expiring at the end of the four consecutive quarterly periods to convert a significant portion of our forecasted foreign currency denominated net income into U.S. dollars to limit the adverse impact of a weakening Argentine peso against the U.S. dollar. The cost of the option contracts, was approximately $1.5 million. In May 2010 we purchased a radiation treatment center and several physician practices in South Carolina for a combined purchase price of approximately $34.5 million.

Historically, our capital expenditures have been primarily for equipment, leasehold improvements and information technology equipment. Total capital expenditures, inclusive of amounts financed through capital lease arrangements, outstanding accounts payable relating to the acceptance and delivery of medical equipment and exclusive of the purchase of radiation treatment centers, were $43.8 million, $41.3 million and $38.0 million in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Historically, we have funded our capital expenditures with cash flows from operations, borrowings under our senior secured credit facilities and borrowings under lease lines of credit.

Net cash provided by financing activities for 2010, 2011 and 2012 was $24.5 million, $48.2 million and $46.4 million, respectively.

On May 10, 2012, we completed an offering of $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 8⁷/8% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2017, with an original issue discount of $1.7 million. The proceeds of $348.3 million was used to prepay and cancel $265.4 million in senior secured credit facility—Term Loan B, prepayment of $63.0 million in senior secured credit facility—revolving credit portion and payment of accrued interest and fees of approximately $0.8 million. In addition, we paid approximately $14.4 million of loan costs relating to transaction fees and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the 8⁷/8% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes and a new revolving credit facility. The remaining net proceeds were used for general corporate purposes.

On March 1, 2011, we issued $50 million of 9⁷/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2017 pursuant to a Commitment Letter from DDJ Capital Management, LLC. The proceeds of $48.5 million were used (i) to fund the MDLLC acquisition and (ii) to fund transaction costs associated with the MDLLC Acquisition. We incurred approximately $1.6 million in transaction fees and expenses, including legal, accounting and other fees and expenses in connection with the new notes, and an initial purchasers' discount of $0.6 million. On April 1, 2011 we received approximately $6.7 million in capital lease financing from a financial institution to fund previously purchased medical equipment. The terms of the capital lease financing are for five years at an average interest rate of approximately 8%. We also had

partnership distributions from non-controlling interests of approximately $4.4 million and $3.9 million in 2011 and 2012, respectively.

On September 29, 2011, we amended our senior secured credit facility. Under the terms of the amendment, the definition of applicable margin was modified, along with financial covenant levels and several modification to the permitted investment baskets and permitted indebtedness. The amendment also extended the revolving credit facility maturity by one year solely for the extended revolving loans, such that they will mature on February 21, 2014, whereas the non-extended revolving loans will continue to mature on February 21, 2013. As a result of the amendment, we paid down approximately $18.0 million in our Revolver loans and incurred approximately $1.3 million in transaction fees and expenses, including legal, accounting and other fees and expenses in connection with the amendment.

On September 30, 2011, we entered into an incremental amendment with a financial institution which agreed to lend an aggregate amount up to $50 million, which will be used for general corporate purposes. As a result of the incremental amendment, we incurred approximately $1.7 million in transaction fees and expenses, including legal, accounting and other fees and expenses in connection with the incremental amendment.

In November 2011, we registered approximately $16.25 million in notes and incurred approximately $0.2 million in transaction fees and expenses, including legal, accounting and other fees and expenses.

Net cash provided by financing activities in 2010 included $308.1 million of proceeds received from the issuance of $310.0 million in aggregate principal amount of senior subordinated notes due 2017. The $308.1 million in proceeds was used to repay the existing $175.0 million in senior subordinated notes due 2015, including accrued and unpaid interest and a call premium of approximately $5.3 million. The remaining proceeds from the offering were used to pay down $74.8 million of the senior secured term loan facility and $10.0 million of the senior secured revolving credit facility and to finance the acquisitions of a radiation treatment center and physician practices in South Carolina, which were consummated on May 3, 2010. In addition, we paid approximately $11.9 million of loan costs relating to transaction fees and expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the $310.0 million senior subordinated notes. We borrowed approximately $8.5 million in December 2010 for the purchase of a radiation treatment center in Princeton West Virginia. Further, we paid approximately $0.9 million in fees and expenses related to our S-4 registration statement filing for the Existing Notes. The change in net cash provided by financing activities included cash provided by non-controlling interest holders in the El Segundo joint venture who contributed approximately $0.6 million in cash for a 22.75% interest in the joint venture. We also had partnership distributions from non-controlling interests of approximately $3.2 million in 2010.

On April 20, 2010, we consummated a debt offering in an aggregate principal amount of $310.0 million of 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017, and repaid our existing $175.0 million in aggregate principal amount 13.5% senior subordinated notes due 2015, including accrued and unpaid interest of approximately $6.4 million and the call premium of approximately $5.3 million. The remaining proceeds from the Offering were used to pay down $74.8 million of the Term Loan B and $10.0 million of our revolving credit facility. A portion of the proceeds was placed in a restricted account pending application to finance certain acquisitions, including the acquisitions of a radiation treatment center and physician practices in South Carolina, which were consummated on May 3, 2010. We incurred approximately $11.9 million in transaction fees and expenses, including legal, accounting and other fees and expenses in connection with the Offering, including the initial purchasers' discount of $1.9 million.

In April 2010, we incurred approximately $10.9 million in early extinguishment of debt as a result of the prepayment of the $175.0 million in senior subordinated notes, which included the call premium

payment of approximately $5.3 million, the write-offs of $2.5 million in deferred financing costs and $3.1 million in original issue discount costs.

On April 22, 2010, affiliates of certain of the initial purchasers of the $310.0 million in aggregate principal amount 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017, as lenders under our senior secured revolving credit facility, provided an additional $15.0 million of commitments to the revolving credit portion of our senior secured credit facility increasing the available commitment from $60.0 million to $75.0 million. We paid $2.0 million to Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. for additional transaction advisory services in respect to the incremental amendments to our existing senior secured revolving credit facility, the additional $15.0 million of commitments to the revolver portion, and the complete refinancing of the senior subordinated notes.

In August 2011, we entered into a lease line of credit with a financial institution for the purpose of obtaining financing for medical equipment purchases in the commitment amount of $12.5 million. The commitment, subject to various restrictions, is scheduled to be available through November 2011. We had utilized approximately $8.7 million under the lease line of credit.

On May 10, 2012, we issued $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 8⁷/8% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2017 (the "Notes").

The Notes were issued pursuant to an indenture, dated May 10, 2012 (the "Indenture"), the Company, the guarantors signatory thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, governing the Notes. The Notes are senior secured second lien obligations of the Company and are guaranteed on a senior secured second lien basis by the Company, and each of our domestic subsidiaries to the extent such guarantor is a guarantor of the Company's obligations under the Revolving Credit Facility (as defined below).

Interest is payable on the Notes on each May 15 and November 15, commencing November 15, 2012. We may redeem some or all of the Notes at any time prior to May 15, 2014 at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes redeemed plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, and an applicable make-whole premium. On or after May 15, 2014, we may redeem some or all of the Notes at redemption prices set forth in the Indenture. In addition, at any time prior to May 15, 2014, we may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes, at a specified redemption price with the net cash proceeds of certain equity offerings.

The Indenture contains covenants that, among other things, restrict the ability for us, and certain of our subsidiaries to incur, assume or guarantee additional indebtedness; pay dividends or redeem or repurchase capital stock; make other restricted payments; incur liens; redeem debt that is junior in right of payment to the Notes; sell or otherwise dispose of assets, including capital stock of subsidiaries; enter into mergers or consolidations; and enter into transactions with affiliates. These covenants are subject to a number of important exceptions and qualifications. In addition, in certain circumstances, if the Company sells assets or experiences certain changes of control, it must offer to purchase the Notes.

We used the proceeds to repay our existing senior secured revolving credit facility and the Term Loan B portion of our senior secured credit facilities, which were prepaid in their entirety, cancelled

and replaced with the new Revolving Credit Facility described below, and to pay related fees and expenses. Any remaining net proceeds will be used for general corporate purposes.

On May 10, 2012, we also entered into the Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement") among Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent (in such capacity, the "Administrative Agent"), collateral agent, issuing bank and as swingline lender, the other agents party thereto and the lenders party thereto.

The credit facilities provided under the Credit Agreement consist of a revolving credit facility providing for up to $140 million of revolving extensions of credit outstanding at any time (including revolving loans, swingline loans and letters of credit) (the "Revolving Credit Facility"). We may increase the aggregate amount of revolving loans by an amount not to exceed $10 million in the aggregate. The Revolving Credit Facility matures October 15, 2016.

Loans under the Revolving Credit Facility are subject to the following interest rates:

(a) for loans which are Eurodollar loans, for any interest period, at a rate per annum equal to a percentage equal to (i) the rate per annum determined on the basis of the rate for deposits in dollars for a period equal to such interest period commencing on the first day of such interest period appearing on Reuters Screen LIBOR01 Page as of 11:00 A.M., London time, two business days prior to the beginning of such interest period divided by (ii) 1.0 minus the then stated maximum rate of all reserve requirements applicable to any member bank of the Federal Reserve System in respect of eurocurrency funding or liabilities as defined in Regulation D (or any successor category of liabilities under Regulation D), plus (ii) an applicable margin based upon a total leverage pricing grid; and

(b) for loans which are base rate loans, (i) the greatest of (A) the Administrative Agent's prime lending rate at such time, (B) the overnight federal funds rate at such time plus ¹/2 of 1%, and (C) the Eurodollar Rate for a Eurodollar Loan with a one-month interest period commencing on such day plus 1.00%, plus (ii) an applicable margin based upon a total leverage pricing grid.

We will pay certain recurring fees with respect to the Revolving Credit Facility, including (i) fees on the unused commitments of the lenders under the Revolving Credit Facility, (ii) letter of credit fees on the aggregate face amounts of outstanding letters of credit and (iii) administration fees.

The Credit Agreement contains customary representations and warranties, subject to limitations and exceptions, and customary covenants restricting the ability (subject to various exceptions) for us and certain of our subsidiaries to: incur additional indebtedness (including guarantee obligations); incur liens; engage in mergers or other fundamental changes; sell certain property or assets; pay dividends of other distributions; consummate acquisitions; make investments, loans and advances; prepay certain indebtedness, including the Notes; change the nature of their business; engage in certain transactions with affiliates; and incur restrictions on the ability of our subsidiaries to make distributions, advances and asset transfers. In addition, under the Revolving Credit Facility, we will be required to comply with a specific first lien leverage ratio not to exceed 1.25 to 1.00.

The Revolving Credit Facility contains customary events of default, including with respect to nonpayment of principal, interest, fees or other amounts; material inaccuracy of a representation or warranty when made; failure to perform or observe covenants; cross-default to other material indebtedness; bankruptcy and insolvency events; inability to pay debts; monetary judgment defaults; actual or asserted invalidity or impairment of any definitive loan documentation and a change of control.

The obligations under the Revolving Credit Facility are guaranteed by us and each direct and indirect, domestic subsidiary.

The Revolving Credit Facility and any interest rate protection and other hedging arrangements provided by any lender party to the Revolving Credit Facility or any affiliate of such a lender are secured on a first priority basis by a perfected security interest in substantially all of the Company's and each guarantor's tangible and intangible assets (subject to certain exceptions).

The Revolving Credit Facility requires that we comply with certain financial covenants, including:

The Revolving Credit Facility also requires that we comply with various other covenants, including, but not limited to, restrictions on new indebtedness, asset sales, capital expenditures, acquisitions and dividends, with which we were in compliance as of December 31, 2012.

We believe available borrowings under our credit facilities, together with our cash flows from operations, will be sufficient to fund our currently anticipated operating requirements. To the extent available borrowings and cash flows from operations are insufficient to fund future requirements, we may be required to seek additional financing through additional increases in our senior secured credit facilities, negotiate additional credit facilities with other lenders or institutions or seek additional capital through private placements or public offerings of equity or debt securities. No assurances can be given that we will be able to extend or increase our senior secured credit facilities, secure additional bank borrowings or lease line of credit or complete additional debt or equity financings on terms favorable to us or at all. Our ability to meet our funding needs could be adversely affected if we experience a decline in our results of operations, or if we violate the covenants and other restrictions to which we are subject under our senior secured credit facilities.

We lease certain of our treatment centers (each, a "facility" and, collectively, the "facilities") and other properties from partnerships that are majority-owned by related parties (each, a "related party lessor" and, collectively, the "related party lessors"). See "Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions." The related party lessors construct the facilities in accordance with our plans and specifications and subsequently lease these facilities to us. Due to the related party relationship, we are considered the owner of these facilities during the construction period pursuant to the provisions of Accounting Standards Codification ("ASC") 840-40, "Sale-Leaseback Transactions" ("ASC 840-40"). In accordance with ASC 840-40, we record a construction in progress asset for these facilities with a corresponding finance obligation during the construction period. These related parties guarantee the debt of the related party lessors, which is considered to be "continuing involvement" pursuant to ASC 840-40. Accordingly, these leases did not qualify as a normal sale-leaseback at the time that construction was completed and these facilities were leased to us. As a result, the costs to construct the facilities and the related finance obligation are recorded on our consolidated balance sheets after construction was completed. The construction costs are included in "Real Estate Subject to Finance Obligation" in the consolidated balance sheets and the accompanying notes, included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. The finance obligation is amortized over the lease during the construction period term based on the payments designated in the lease agreements.

As of March 31, 2010, the related party lessors completed the refinancing of certain of their respective mortgages to remove the personal guarantees of the debt related thereto. As a result, we derecognized approximately $64.8 million in real estate subject to finance obligation, $67.7 million in finance obligation and recorded approximately $2.9 million of deferred gains that will be amortized as a reduction of rent expense over 15 years. In addition, we entered into a new master lease arrangement with the landlord on 28 properties. The initial term of the master lease is 15 years with four 5 year renewal options. Annual payments, including executory costs, total approximately $13.4 million pursuant

to the master lease. The lease payments are scheduled to increase annually based on increases in the consumer price index. During 2011 the related party lessors completed construction of 2 properties. Upon completion we entered into a new master lease arrangement with the related party lessors for these 2 properties as well as an existing property. The initial term of the new master lease arrangement is 15 years with four 5 year renewal options. Annual payments, including executory costs, total approximately $0.7 million pursuant to the master lease. The lease payments are scheduled to increase annually based on increases in the consumer price index. The amount of finance obligations related to properties that have not been derecognized as well as two properties under development as of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 was $17.2 million and $14.3 million, respectively.

Our billing system in the U.S. utilizes a fee schedule for billing patients, third-party payers and government sponsored programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. Fees billed to government sponsored programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, and fees billed to contracted payers and self pay patients (not covered under other third party payer arrangements) are automatically adjusted to the allowable payment amount at time of billing. In 2009, we updated our billing system to include fee schedules on approximately 85% of all payers and developed a blended rate allowable amount on the remaining payers. As a result of this change in 2009, fees billed to all payers are automatically adjusted to the allowable payment at time of billing.

Insurance information is requested from all patients either at the time the first appointment is scheduled or at the time of service. A copy of the insurance card is scanned into our system at the time of service so that it is readily available to staff during the collection process. Patient demographic information is collected for both our clinical and billing systems.

It is our policy to collect co-payments from the patient at the time of service. Insurance benefit information is obtained and the patient is informed of their deductible and co-payment responsibility prior to the commencement of treatment.

Charges are posted to the billing system by coders in our offices or in our central billing office. After charges are posted, edits are performed, any necessary corrections are made and billing forms are generated, then sent electronically to our clearinghouse whenever electronic submission is possible. Any bills not able to be processed through the clearinghouse are printed and mailed from our print mail service. Statements are automatically generated from our billing system and mailed to the patient on a regular basis for any amounts still outstanding from the patient. Daily, weekly and monthly accounts receivable analysis reports are utilized by staff and management to prioritize accounts for collection purposes, as well as to identify trends and issues. Strategies to respond proactively to these issues are developed at weekly and monthly team meetings. Our write-off process requires manual review and our process for collecting accounts receivable is dependent on the type of payer as set forth below.

Our central billing office staff expedites the payment process from insurance companies and other payers via electronic inquiries, phone calls and automated letters to ensure timely payment. Our billing system generates standard aging reports by date of billing in increments of 30 day intervals. The collection team utilizes these reports to assess and determine the payers requiring additional focus and collection efforts. Our accounts receivable exposure on Medicare, Medicaid and commercial payer balances are largely limited to denials and other unusual adjustments. Our exposure to bad debts on balances relating to these types of payers over the years has been insignificant.

In the event of denial of payment, we follow the payer's standard appeals process, both to secure payment and to lobby the payers, as appropriate, to modify their medical policies to expand coverage for the newer and more advanced treatment services that we provide which, in many cases, is the

payer's reason for denial of payment. If all reasonable collection efforts with these payers have been exhausted by our central billing office staff, the account receivable is written-off.

We administer self-pay account balances through our central billing office and our policy is to first attempt to collect these balances although after initial attempts we often send outstanding self-pay patient claims to collection agencies at designated points in the collection process. In some cases monthly payment arrangements are made with patients for the account balance remaining after insurance payments have been applied. These accounts are reviewed monthly to ensure payments continue to be made in a timely manner. Once it has been determined by our staff that the patient is not responding to our collection attempts, a final notice is mailed. This generally occurs more than 120 days after the date of the original bill. If there is no response to our final notice, after 30 days the account is assigned to a collection agency and, as appropriate, recorded as a bad debt and written off. We also have payment arrangements with patients for the self-pay portion due in which monthly payments are made by the patient on a predetermined schedule. Balances under $50 are written off but not sent to the collection agency. All accounts are specifically identified for write-offs and accounts are written off prior to being submitted to the collection agency.

The following table summarizes our growth in treatment centers and the local markets in which we operate for the periods indicated:

In 2010, we internally developed two new radiation centers, sold one radiation center, closed four radiation centers, acquired two radiation centers, consolidated a hospital-based radiation center and acquired the assets of several physician practices as follows:

In March 2010, we contributed approximately $3.0 million in tangible assets for a 77.3% interest in a joint venture with a group of physicians to open a radiation treatment center in El Segundo, California. The radiation treatment center expands our presence into the California market.

On April 30, 2010, we sold certain assets of the Gettysburg facility to one of Gettysburg Radiation, LLC's minority equityholders for approximately $925,000. Due to the poor local economy, as well as the opening of a radiation therapy center by a nearby hospital, the performance of the Gettysburg facility deteriorated significantly.

In April 2010, we entered into definitive agreements with Carolina Regional Cancer Center, P.A. for the acquisition of a radiation treatment center in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina that holds three certificate of need licenses, and Atlantic Urology Clinics, LLC, Adult & Pediatric Urology Center of the Carolina, P.A., Coastal Urology Center, P.A. and Grand Strand Urology, LLP with respect to the acquisition of the assets of these Myrtle Beach-based physician practices. On May 3, 2010, we consummated these acquisitions for a combined purchase price of approximately $34.5 million in cash. The acquisition of the Myrtle Beach facility expands our presence into a new local market within an existing regional division.

During the fourth quarter of 2010, we closed and consolidated two radiation centers in Michigan and two radiation centers in Nevada and consolidated a hospital-based radiation center in Utica, New York.

In December 2010, we acquired the assets of a radiation treatment center located in Princeton, West Virginia for approximately $8.0 million. The center purchased in West Virginia further expands our presence into the West Virginia market.

During 2010, we acquired the assets of several integrated cancer care physician practices in Florida and Arizona for approximately $860,000. The physician practices provide synergistic clinical services to our patients in the respective markets in which we treat.

On March 1, 2011, we purchased the remaining 67% interest in MDLLC from Bernardo Dosoretz as well as interests in the subsidiaries of MDLLC from Alejandro Dosoretz and Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of approximately 91% in the underlying radiation oncology practices located in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. The Company also purchased an additional 61% interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A. from Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of 80%. The Company consummated these acquisitions for a combined purchase price of approximately $82.7 million, comprised of $47.5 million in cash, 25 common units of Parent immediately exchanged for 13,660 units of RT Investments' non-voting preferred equity units and 258,955 units of RT Investments' class A equity units totaling approximately $16.25 million, and issuance of a 9⁷/8% note payable, due 2017 totaling approximately $16.05 million to the seller and an estimated contingent earn out payment totaling $2.3 million, and issuance of real estate located in Costa Rica totaling $0.6 million. The earn out payment is contingent upon certain acquired centers attaining earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization targets, is due 18 months subsequent to the transaction closing, and is payable through Company financing and issuance of equity units.

In June 2011, we entered into an outpatient radiation therapy management services agreement with a medical group to manage its radiation oncology treatment site in London, Kentucky.

In July 2011, we entered into a revised facility management services agreement with an existing provider in Michigan. The provider will become a subsidiary of a larger medical practice group, in which we will continue the management of the radiation oncology practices in Michigan. This arrangement became effective during the fourth quarter of 2011.

In August 2011, we completed a replacement de novo radiation treatment facility in Alabama. This facility replaces an existing radiation treatment facility in which we are now providing consult services.

On August 29, 2011, we acquired the assets of a radiation treatment center located in Redding, California, for approximately $9.6 million. The acquisition of the Redding facility further expands our presence into the Northern California market.

In September 2011, we entered into a professional services agreement with a hospital district in Broward County, Florida to provide professional services at two sites within the hospital district. In

March 2012, we entered into a license agreement with the North Broward Hospital District to license the space and equipment and assume responsibility for the operation of the two radiation therapy departments at Broward General Medical Center and North Broward Medical Center as part of our value added services offering. The license agreement runs for an initial term of ten years, with three separate five year renewal options. We recorded approximately $4.3 million of tangible assets relating to the use of the medical equipment pursuant to the license agreement.

On December 22, 2011, the Company acquired the interest in an operating entity which operates two radiation treatment centers in located in North Carolina, for approximately $6.3 million, including an earn-out provision of approximately $0.4 million contingent upon maintaining a certain level of patient volume. On April 16, 2012 we acquired certain additional assets utilized in one of the radiation oncology centers for approximately $0.4 million including an earn-out provision of approximately $0.4 million contingent upon maintaining a certain level of patient volume. The acquisition of the two radiation treatment centers further expands our presence into the eastern North Carolina market.

During 2011, the Company acquired the assets of several physician practices in Florida and the non-professional practice assets of several North Carolina physician practices for approximately $0.4 million. The physician practices provide synergistic clinical services to our patients in the respective markets in which we provide radiation therapy treatment services.

On February 6, 2012, we acquired the assets of a radiation oncology practice and a medical oncology group located in Asheville, North Carolina for approximately $0.9 million. The acquisition of the radiation oncology practice and the medical oncology group, further expands our presence in the Western North Carolina market and builds on the our integrated cancer care model.

In March 2012, we entered into a license agreement with the North Broward Hospital District to license the space and equipment and assume responsibility for the operation of the two radiation therapy departments at Broward General Medical Center and North Broward Medical Center as part of our value added services offering. The license agreement runs for an initial term of ten years, with three separate five year renewal options. We recorded approximately $4.3 million of tangible assets relating to the use of the medical equipment pursuant to the license agreement.

On March 30, 2012, we acquired the assets of a radiation oncology practice for $26.0 million and two urology groups located in Sarasota/Manatee counties in Southwest Florida for approximately $1.6 million, for a total purchase price of approximately $27.6 million, comprised of $21.9 million in cash and assumed capital lease obligation of approximately $5.7 million. The acquisition of the radiation oncology practice and the two urology groups, further expands our presence in the Sarasota/Manatee counties and builds on our integrated cancer care model.

On August 22, 2012, we opened a de novo radiation treatment center in Argentina. The development of this radiation treatment center further expands our presence in the Latin America market.

In December 2012, we purchased the remaining 50% interest in an unconsolidated joint venture which operates a freestanding radiation treatment center in West Palm Beach, Florida for approximately $1.1 million.

During 2012, we acquired the assets of several integrated cancer care physician practices in Arizona, California and Florida for approximately $1.7 million. The physician practices provide synergistic clinical services and an integrated cancer care service to our patients in the respective markets in which we provide radiation therapy treatment services.

The operations of the foregoing acquisitions have been included in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss from the respective dates of each acquisition. When we acquire a treatment center, the purchase price is allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their respective fair values.

During the first quarter of 2011, we closed two treatment facilities in California, one in Beverly Hills and the other facility in Corona. In addition we are no longer treating at our Gilbert Arizona facility and we are using the center for our other specialty practices for office visits and consults.

In January 2012 we ceased provision of professional services at our Lee County—Florida hospital based treatment center.

In February 2012 we closed a radiation treatment facility in Owings Mills, Maryland.

In March 2012 we terminated our arrangement to provide professional services at a hospital in Seaford, Delaware.

In July 2012 we closed a radiation treatment facility in Monroe, Michigan, and we are currently in the process of constructing a replacement de novo radiation treatment center in Troy, Michigan scheduled to open during the first quarter of 2013.

In October 2012, we sold our membership interest in an unconsolidated joint venture in Mohali, India to our former partner in the joint venture for a nominal amount.

In November 2012, we reopened our East Naples, Florida radiation treatment center to support the influx of patients in our southwest Florida local market.

As of December 31, 2012, we have one replacement de novo radiation treatment center project in process in Michigan and three additional de novo radiation treatment centers located in New York, Bolivia and Dominican Republic. The internal development of radiation treatment centers is subject to a number of risks including but not limited to risks related to negotiating and finalizing agreements, construction delays, unexpected costs, obtaining required regulatory permits, licenses and approvals and the availability of qualified healthcare and administrative professionals and personnel. As such, we cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully develop radiation treatment centers in accordance with our current plans and any failure or material delay in successfully completing planned internally developed treatment centers could harm our business and impair our future growth.

We have been selected by a consortium of leading New York academic medical centers (including Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Beth Israel Medical Center/Continuum Health System, NYU Langone Medical Center, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, and Montefiore Medical Center) to serve as the developer and manager of a proton beam therapy center to be constructed in Manhattan. The project is in the final stages of certificate of need approval. We expect to invest approximately $10,000,000 in the project and will have an approximate 28.5% ownership interest. We will also receive a management fee of 5% of collected revenues. In connection with our role as manager, we have accounted for our interest in the center as an equity method investment. The center is expected to commence operations in late-2016.

Our discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations are based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The preparation of these financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses, and related disclosures of contingent assets and liabilities. We continuously evaluate our critical accounting policies and estimates. We base our estimates on historical experience and on various assumptions that we believe to be reasonable under the circumstances, the results of which form the basis for making judgments about the carrying values of assets and liabilities that are not readily apparent from other sources. Actual results may differ materially from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

We believe the following critical accounting policies are important to the portrayal of our financial condition and results of operations and require our management's subjective or complex judgment because of the sensitivity of the methods, assumptions and estimates used in the preparation of our consolidated financial statements.

We evaluate certain of our radiation oncology practices in order to determine if they are variable interest entities ("VIE"). This evaluation resulted in determining that certain of our radiation oncology practices were potential variable interests. For each of these practices, we have determined (1) the sufficiency of the fair value of the entities' equity investments at risk to absorb losses, (2) that, as a group, the holders of the equity investments at risk have (a) the direct or indirect ability through voting rights to make decisions about the entities' significant activities, (b) the obligation to absorb the expected losses of the entity and their obligations are not protected directly or indirectly, and (c) the right to receive the expected residual return of the entity, and (3) substantially all of the entities' activities do not involve or are not conducted on behalf of an investor that has disproportionately fewer voting rights in terms of its obligation to absorb the expected losses or its right to receive expected residual returns of the entity, or both. ASC 810, "Consolidation" ("ASC 810"), requires a company to consolidate VIEs if the company is the primary beneficiary of the activities of those entities. Certain of our radiation oncology practices are variable interest entities and we have a variable interest in certain of these practices through our administrative services agreements. Pursuant to ASC 810, through our variable interests in these practices, we have the power to direct the activities of these practices that most significantly impact the entity's economic performance and we would absorb a majority of the expected losses of these practices should they occur. Based on these determinations, we have included these radiation oncology practices in our consolidated financial statements for all periods presented. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

We adopted updated accounting guidance beginning with the first quarter of 2010, by providing an ongoing qualitative rather than quantitative assessment of our ability to direct the activities of a variable interest entity that most significantly impact the entity's economic performance and our rights or obligations to receive benefits or absorb losses, in order to determine whether those entities will be required to be consolidated in our consolidated financial statements. The adoption of the new guidance had no material impact to our financial position and results of operations.

We have agreements with third-party payers that provide us payments at amounts different from our established rates. Net patient service revenue is reported at the estimated net realizable amounts due from patients, third-party payers and others for services rendered. Net patient service revenue is recognized as services are provided. Medicare and other governmental programs reimburse physicians

based on fee schedules, which are determined by the related government agency. We also have agreements with managed care organizations to provide physician services based on negotiated fee schedules. Accordingly, the revenues reported in our consolidated financial statements are recorded at the amount that is expected to be received.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues from Medicare, Medicaid and other payers that receive discounts from our standard charges. We must estimate the total amount of these discounts to prepare our consolidated financial statements. The Medicare and Medicaid regulations and various managed care contracts under which these discounts must be calculated are complex and subject to interpretation and adjustment. We estimate the allowance for contractual discounts on a payer class basis given our interpretation of the applicable regulations or contract terms. These interpretations sometimes result in payments that differ from our estimates. Additionally, updated regulations and contract renegotiations occur frequently necessitating regular review and assessment of the estimation process. Changes in estimates related to the allowance for contractual discounts affect revenues reported in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive (loss) income. If our overall estimated allowance for contractual discounts on our revenues for the year ended December 31, 2012 were changed by 1%, our after-tax loss from continuing operations would change by approximately $0.1 million. This is only one example of reasonably possible sensitivity scenarios. A significant increase in our estimate of contractual discounts for all payers would lower our earnings. This would adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and future access to capital.

During the years ended 2010, 2011 and 2012, approximately 48%, 48% and 45%, respectively, of net patient service revenue related to services rendered under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In the ordinary course of business, we are potentially subject to a review by regulatory agencies concerning the accuracy of billings and sufficiency of supporting documentation of procedures performed. Laws and regulations governing the Medicare and Medicaid programs are extremely complex and subject to interpretation. As a result, there is at least a reasonable possibility that estimates will change by a material amount in the near term.

Accounts receivable are reported net of estimated allowances for doubtful accounts and contractual adjustments. Accounts receivable are uncollateralized and primarily consist of amounts due from third-party payers and patients. To provide for accounts receivable that could become uncollectible in the future, we establish an allowance for doubtful accounts to reduce the carrying amount of such receivables to their estimated net realizable value. The credit risk for other concentrations (other than Medicare) of receivables is limited due to the large number of insurance companies and other payers that provide payments for our services. We do not believe that there are any other significant concentrations of receivables from any particular payer that would subject us to any significant credit risk in the collection of our accounts receivable.

The amount of the provision for doubtful accounts is based upon our assessment of historical and expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in Federal and state governmental healthcare coverage and other collection indicators. The primary tool used in our assessment is an annual, detailed review of historical collections and write-offs of accounts receivable as they relate to aged accounts receivable balances. The results of our detailed review of historical collections and write-offs, adjusted for changes in trends and conditions, are used to evaluate the allowance amount for the current period. If the actual bad debt allowance percentage applied to the applicable aging categories would change by 1% from our estimated bad debt allowance percentage for the year ended December 31, 2012, our after-tax loss from continuing operations would change by approximately $0.5 million and our net accounts receivable would change by approximately $0.9 million at December 31, 2012. The resulting change in this analytical tool is considered to be a reasonably likely

change that would affect our overall assessment of this critical accounting estimate. Accounts receivable are written-off after collection efforts have been followed in accordance with our policies.

Goodwill represents the excess purchase price over the estimated fair value of net assets acquired by the Company in business combinations. Goodwill and indefinite life intangible assets are not amortized but are reviewed annually for impairment, or more frequently if impairment indicators arise. During the third quarter of 2012 we recognized goodwill impairment of approximately $69.9 million as a result of the final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2013 by CMS on November 1, 2012, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers as well as the changes in treatment patterns and volumes in prostate cancer as a result of the slowing rate of men diagnosed and referred to treatment regimens, as a result of the Preventative Services Task Force report issued in May 2012 recommending against routine PSA screenings for healthy men, as well as suggested changes in treatment pattern for low risk prostate cancer away from definitive treatment. During the fourth quarter of 2012 we incurred an impairment loss of approximately $11.1 million. Approximately $10.8 million relating to goodwill impairment in certain of our reporting units and approximately $0.1 million related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements in the Delmarva Peninsula local market and approximately $0.2 million related to a consolidated joint venture in the Central Maryland local market. During the third quarter of 2011 we recognized goodwill impairment of approximately $226.5 million and trade name impairment of approximately $8.4 million as a result of our review of growth expectations and the release of the final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2012 by CMS on November 1, 2011, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers. During the fourth quarter of 2011 we incurred an impairment loss of approximately $121.6 million. Approximately $49.8 million of the $121.6 million related to the trade name impairment as a result of our rebranding initiative. The remaining $71.8 million of impairment related to goodwill in certain of our reporting units.

The implied fair value of goodwill is determined in the same manner as the amount of goodwill recognized in a business combination. The estimated fair value of the reporting unit is allocated to all of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit (including the unrecognized intangible assets) as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination and the estimated fair value of the reporting unit was the purchase price paid. Based on (i) assessment of current and expected future economic conditions, (ii) trends, strategies and forecasted cash flows at each reporting unit and (iii) assumptions similar to those that market participants would make in valuing the reporting units.

The estimated fair value measurements were developed using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). For goodwill, the primary valuation technique used was an income methodology based on estimates of forecasted cash flows for each reporting unit, with those cash flows discounted to present value using rates commensurate with the risks of those cash flows. In addition, a market- based valuation method involving analysis of market multiples of revenues and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for (i) a group of comparable public companies and (ii) recent transactions, if any, involving comparable companies. Assumptions used are similar to those that would be used by market participants performing valuations of regional divisions. Assumptions were based on analysis of current and expected future economic conditions and the strategic plan for each reporting unit.

Intangible assets consist of trade names, non-compete agreements, licenses and hospital contractual relationships. Trade names have an indefinite life and are tested annually for impairment. Non-compete agreements, licenses and hospital contractual relationships are amortized over the life of the agreement (which typically ranges from 2 to 20 years) using the straight-line method. Intangible assets impairment loss was recognized for the year ended December 31, 2011 of approximately $58.2 million relating to

our trade name and rebranding initiatives. No intangible asset impairment loss was recognized for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2010.

During the second quarter of 2011, certain of our regions' patient volume have stabilized in their respective markets. Although we have had a stabilization of patient volume, we reviewed our anticipated growth expectations in certain of our reporting units and are considering adjusting our expectations for the remainder of the year. If our previously projected cash flows for these reporting units are not achieved, it may be necessary to revise these estimated cash flows and obtain a valuation analysis and appraisal that will enable us to determine if all or a portion of the recorded goodwill or any portion of other long-lived assets are impaired.

During the third quarter of 2011, we completed an interim impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets. In performing this test, we assessed the implied fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets. We determined that the carrying value of goodwill and trade name in certain U.S. Domestic markets, including North East United States (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), California, South West United States (central Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada), the Florida east coast, Northwest Florida and Southwest Florida regions exceeded their fair value. Accordingly, we recorded noncash impairment charges in the U.S. Domestic reporting segment totaling $234.9 million relating to goodwill and trade name in the consolidated statements of operations for the quarter ended September 30, 2011.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, we decided to rebrand our current trade name of 21st Century Oncology. As a result of the rebranding initiative and concurrent with our annual impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets, we incurred an impairment loss of approximately $121.6 million. Approximately $49.8 million of the $121.6 million related to the trade name impairment as a result of our rebranding initiative. The remaining $71.8 million of impairment relating to goodwill in certain of our reporting units, including North East United States, (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), and California, Southwest U.S. (Arizona and Nevada). The remaining domestic U.S. trade name of approximately $4.6 million will be amortized over its remaining useful life through December 31, 2012. We incurred approximately $0.9 million in amortization expense during the fourth quarter. In addition, we impaired certain deposits on equipment of approximately $0.7 million and $0.8 million in leasehold improvements relating to a planned radiation treatment facility office closing in Baltimore, Maryland.

In accordance with ASC 360, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived Assets", we review our long-lived assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of these assets may not be fully recoverable. Assessment of possible impairment of a particular asset is based on our ability to recover the carrying value of such asset based on our estimate of its undiscounted future cash flows. If these estimated future cash flows are less than the carrying value of such asset, an impairment charge would be recognized for the amount by which the asset's carrying value exceeds its estimated fair value.

All share-based compensation cost is measured at the grant date, based on the fair value of the award, and is recognized as an expense in the statement of operations and comprehensive loss over the requisite service period.

For purposes of determining the compensation expense associated with equity grants, we value the business enterprise using a variety of widely accepted valuation techniques, which considered a number of factors such as the financial performance of the Company, the values of comparable companies and the lack of marketability of the Company's equity. The Company then uses the option pricing method

to determine the fair value of equity units at the time of grant using the following assumptions: a term of five years, which is based on the expected term in which the units will be realized; a risk-free interest rate of 1.96% and 0.53% for grants issued in 2010 and 2011, respectively, which is the five-year U.S. federal treasury bond rate consistent with the term assumption; and expected volatility of 50% and 55% for grants issued in 2010 and 2011, respectively, which is based on the historical data of equity instruments of comparable companies.

For purposes of determining the compensation expense associated with the 2012 equity-based incentive plan grants, management valued the business enterprise using a variety of widely accepted valuation techniques, which considered a number of factors such as the financial performance of the Company, the values of comparable companies and the lack of marketability of the Company's equity. The Company then used the probability-weighted expected return method ("PWERM") to determine the fair value of these units at the time of grant. Under the PWERM, the value of the units is estimated based upon an analysis of future values for the enterprise assuming various future outcomes (exits) as well as the rights of each unit class. In developing assumptions for the various exit scenarios, management considered the Company's ability to achieve certain growth and profitability milestone in order to maximize shareholder value at the time of potential exit.

For 2010 and 2011, the estimated fair value of the units, less an assumed forfeiture rate of 2.7%, is recognized in expense in the Company's financial statements on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards for Class B Units. For Class B Units, the requisite service period is 48 months, and for Class C Units, the requisite service period is 34 months only if probable of being met. The assumed forfeiture rate is based on an average historical forfeiture rate.

For 2012, the estimated fair value of the units, less an assumed forfeiture rate of 3.9%, is recognized in expense in the Company's consolidated financial statements on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards for Class MEP Units. For Class MEP Units, the requisite service period is approximately 18 months, and for Class EMEP Units, the requisite service period is 36 months only if probable of being met. The assumed forfeiture rate is based on an average historical forfeiture rate.

We make estimates in recording our provision for income taxes, including determination of deferred tax assets and deferred tax liabilities and any valuation allowances that might be required against the deferred tax assets. ASC 740, "Income Taxes" ("ASC 740"), requires that a valuation allowance be established when it is more likely than not that all or a portion of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. For the year ended December 31, 2010, we determined that the valuation allowance should be $17.6 million, consisting of $12.3 million against federal deferred tax assets and $5.3 million against state deferred tax assets. This represents an increase of $14.2 million in valuation allowance. For the year ended December 31, 2011, we determined that the valuation allowance was approximately $45.5 million, consisting of $38.3 million against federal deferred tax assets and $7.2 million against state deferred tax assets. This represented an increase of approximately $27.9 million. For the year ended December 31, 2012, we determined that the valuation allowance was approximately $82.3 million, consisting of $70.3 million against federal deferred tax assets and $12.0 million against state deferred tax assets. The valuation allowance increased approximately $36.8 million from $45.5 million in 2011.

ASC 740 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an entity's financial statements and prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attributes for financial statement disclosure of tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a tax return. Under ASC 740, the impact of an uncertain tax position on the income tax return must be recognized at the largest amount that is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon audit by the relevant taxing authority. An uncertain income

tax position will not be recognized if it has less than a 50% likelihood of being sustained. Additionally, ASC 740 provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition.

We are subject to taxation in the United States, approximately 22 state jurisdictions, the Netherlands, and throughout Latin America, namely, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico. However, the principal jurisdictions for which we are subject to tax are the United States, Florida and Argentina.

Our future effective tax rates could be affected by changes in the relative mix of taxable income and taxable loss jurisdictions, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets or liabilities, or changes in tax laws, interpretations thereof. We monitor the assumptions used in estimating the annual effective tax rate and makes adjustments, if required, throughout the year. If actual results differ from the assumptions used in estimating our annual effective tax rates, future income tax expense (benefit) could be materially affected.

In addition, we are routinely under audit by federal, state, or local authorities in the areas of income taxes and other taxes. These audits include questioning the timing and amount of deductions and compliance with federal, state, and local tax laws. We regularly assess the likelihood of adverse outcomes from these audits to determine the adequacy of our provision for income taxes. To the extent we prevail in matters for which accruals have been established or is required to pay amounts in excess of such accruals, the effective tax rate could be materially affected.

During 2012, we closed a US Federal income tax examination for tax years 2007 through 2008. All issues proposed have been agreed to with the exception of interest and penalties for which an accrual of $2.2 million is recorded. We closed the New York State audit for tax years 2006 through 2008 with a favorable result.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards,(ASU 2011-04), which amends the FASB Accounting Standards Codification to provide a consistent definition of fair value and ensure that the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are similar between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. ASU 2011-04 changes certain fair value measurement principles and enhances the disclosure requirements particularly for level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2011-04 is applied prospectively. The amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim period within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. We adopted ASU 2011-04 on January 1, 2012 which had no impact on the our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In June 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-05, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Presentation of Comprehensive Income, (ASU 2011-05). ASU 2011-05 amends the FASB Accounting Standards Codification to allow an entity the option to present the total of comprehensive income, the components of net income, and the components of other comprehensive income either in a single continuous statement of comprehensive income or in two separate but consecutive statements. In both choices, an entity is required to present each component of net income along with the total net income, each component of other comprehensive income along with a total for other comprehensive income, and a total amount for comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 eliminates the option to present the components of other comprehensive income as part of the statement of changes in stockholders' equity. The amendments to the Codification in the ASU do not change the items that must be reported in other comprehensive income or when an item of other comprehensive income must be reclassified to net income. In December 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-12, Comprehensive Income (Topic 220): Deferral of the Effective Date for Amendments to the Presentation of Reclassifications of Items Out of

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income in Accounting Standards Update No. 2011-05, (ASU 2011-12). ASU 2011-12 updates ASU 2011-05 by deferring requirements to present items that are reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to net income separately with their respective components of net income and other comprehensive income. ASU 2011-05 and ASU 2011-12 should be applied retrospectively. The amendments pursuant to both ASU 2011-05 and 2011-12 are effective for fiscal years, and interim period within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. We adopted ASU 2011-05 and 2011-12 in 2011.

In July 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-07, Health Care Entities (Topic 954): Presentation and Disclosure of Patient Service Revenue, Provision for Bad Debts, and the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts for Certain Health Care Entities, (ASU 2011-07). ASU 2011-07 amends the FASB Accounting Standards Codification to require health care entities that recognize significant amounts of patient service revenue at the time services are rendered even though they do not assess the patient's ability to pay to present the provision for bad debts related to patient service revenue as a deduction from patient service revenue (net of contractual allowances and discounts) on their statement of operations. Additionally, those health care entities are required to provide enhanced disclosure about their policies for recognizing revenue and assessing bad debts. The amendments also require disclosures of patient service revenue (net of contractual allowances and discounts) as well as qualitative and quantitative information about changes in the allowance for doubtful accounts. ASU 2011-07 is applied retrospectively and disclosures relating to ASU 2011-07 are applied prospectively. The amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim period within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. We have evaluated ASU 2011-07 and determined that the requirements of this ASU are not applicable to us as the ultimate collection of patient service revenue is generally determinable at the time of service, and therefore, the ASU had no impact on the our consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Legislative and regulatory action has resulted in continuing changes in reimbursement under the Medicare and Medicaid programs that will continue to limit payments we receive under these programs.

Within the statutory framework of the Medicare and Medicaid programs, there are substantial areas subject to legislative and regulatory changes, administrative rulings, interpretations, and discretion which may further affect payments made under those programs, and the federal and state governments may, in the future, reduce the funds available under those programs or require more stringent utilization and quality reviews of our treatment centers or require other changes in our operations. Additionally, there may be a continued rise in managed care programs and future restructuring of the financing and delivery of healthcare in the United States. These events could have an adverse effect on our future financial results.

While inflation was not a material factor in either revenue or operating expenses during the periods presented, the healthcare industry is labor- intensive. Wages and other expenses increase during periods of inflation and labor shortages, such as the nationwide shortage of dosimetrists and radiation therapists. In addition, suppliers pass along rising costs to us in the form of higher prices. We have implemented cost control measures to curb increases in operating costs and expenses. We have to date offset increases in operating costs by increasing reimbursement or expanding services. However, we cannot predict our ability to cover, or offset, future cost increases.

The following table sets forth our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2012.

We do not currently have any off-balance sheet arrangements with unconsolidated entities or financial partnerships, such as entities often referred to as structured finance or special purpose entities, which would have been established for the purpose of facilitating off-balance sheet arrangements or other contractually narrow or limited purposes. In addition, we do not engage in trading activities involving non-exchange traded contracts. As such, we are not materially exposed to any financing, liquidity, market or credit risk that could arise if we had engaged in these relationships.

We are exposed to various market risks as a part of our operations, and we anticipate that this exposure will increase as a result of our planned growth. In an effort to mitigate losses associated with these risks, we may at times enter into derivative financial instruments. These derivative financial instruments may take the form of forward sales contracts, option contracts, and interest rate swaps. We have not and do not intend to engage in the practice of trading derivative securities for profit. Because our borrowings under our senior secured credit facilities will bear interest at variable rates, we are

sensitive to changes in prevailing interest rates. We currently manage part of our interest rate risk under an interest rate swap agreement.

We are exposed to changes in interest rates as a result of our outstanding variable rate debt. To reduce the interest rate exposure, we entered into an interest rate swap agreement whereby we fixed the interest rate on the notional amount of approximately $290.6 million of our senior secured term loan facility, effective as of June 30, 2008. The rate and maturity of the interest rate swap is 3.67% plus a margin, which is currently 425 basis points, and would expire on March 31, 2012. The amount of our senior secured term loan facility subject to the interest rate swap agreement will reduce from $290.6 million to $116.0 million by the end of the term. In December 2011, we terminated the interest rate swap agreement and paid approximately $1.9 million representing the fair value of the interest rate hedge at time of termination. At December 31, 2011 no amount of the floating rate senior debt was subject to an interest rate swap.

In July 2011, we entered into two interest rate swap agreements whereby we fixed the interest rate on the notional amounts totaling approximately $116.0 million of our senior secured term loan facility, effective as of March 30, 2012. The rate and maturity of the interest rate swap agreements are 0.923% plus a margin, which was 475 basis points, and was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2013. In May 2012, the Company terminated the interest rate swap agreements and paid approximately $1.0 million representing the fair value of the interest rate hedges at time of termination. No ineffectiveness was recorded as a result of the termination of the interest rate swap agreement. The amount of accumulated other comprehensive loss related to the terminated interest rate swap agreements of approximately $1.0 million, net of tax is reflected as interest expense in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

The swaps are derivatives and are accounted for under ASC 815, "Derivatives and Hedging" ("ASC 815"). The fair value of the swap agreements, representing the estimated amount that we would pay to a third party assuming our obligations under the interest rate swap agreements terminated at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, was approximately $-0- million and $0.7 million, respectively. The estimated fair value of our interest rate swaps were determined using the income approach that considers various inputs and assumptions, including LIBOR swap rates, cash flow activity, yield curves and other relevant economic measures, all of which are observable market inputs that are classified under Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value also incorporates valuation adjustments for credit risk.

Since we have the ability to elect different interest rates on the debt at each reset date, and our senior secured credit facility contains certain prepayment provisions, the hedging relationship does not qualify for use of the shortcut method under ASC 815. Therefore, the effectiveness of the hedge relationships are assessed on a quarterly basis during the life of the hedge through regression analysis. The entire change in fair market value is recorded in equity, net of tax, as other comprehensive income (loss).

Outstanding balances under our senior secured credit facility bear interest based on either LIBOR plus an initial spread, or an alternate base rate plus an initial spread, at our option. Accordingly, an adverse change in interest rates would cause an increase in the amount of interest paid. As of December 31, 2012, we have interest rate exposure on $-0- million of our senior secured credit facility. A 100 basis point change in interest rates on our senior secured credit facility would result in an increase of $-0- million in the amount of annualized interest paid and annualized interest expense recognized in our consolidated financial statements.

Foreign currency risk is the risk that fluctuations in foreign exchange rates could impact our results of operations. We are exposed to a significant amount of foreign exchange risk, primarily between the U.S. dollar and the Argentine Peso. This exposure relates to the provision of radiation oncology services to patients at our Latin American operations and purchases of goods and services in foreign currencies. Since our acquisition of Medical Developers, each quarter we have entered into foreign exchange option contracts that expire in one year. On December 31, 2012, we entered into a foreign exchange option contract maturing on December 31, 2013 to replace the contract maturing on December 28, 2012. Because our Argentine forecasted foreign currency denominated net income is expected to increase commensurate with inflationary expectations, the adverse impact on net income from a weakening Argentine Peso against the U.S. dollar is limited to the cost of the option contracts in effect, which was approximately $0.7 million. With respect to a strengthening Argentine Peso against the U.S. dollar versus inflationary expectations, the estimated favorable impact on net income for an Argentine Peso that is 5%, 10% and 15% stronger than inflationary expectations, will be $0.2 million, $0.1 million and $0.4 million to our consolidated results, respectively, which includes the cost of the option contracts. Under our foreign currency management program, we expect to monitor foreign exchange rates and periodically enter into forward contracts and other derivative instruments. We do not use derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes.

These programs reduce, but do not entirely eliminate, the impact of currency exchange movements. Foreign currency forward and option contracts are sensitive to changes in foreign currency exchange rates. Our current practice is to use currency derivatives without hedge accounting designation. The maturity of these instruments generally occurs within twelve months. Gains or losses resulting from the fair valuing of these instruments are reported in loss on foreign currency derivative contracts on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. For years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, we incurred a loss of approximately $1.2 million and $0.7 million, respectively relating to the fair market valuation of our foreign currency derivative program.

Information with respect to this Item is contained in our consolidated financial statements beginning with the Index on Page F-1 of this report, which is incorporated herein by reference.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

On December 4, 2012, Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") notified Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") that E&Y would be dismissed as the Company's independent registered public accounting firm. E&Y's dismissal became effective on December 4, 2012. The decision to change accounting firms was approved by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company (the "Audit Committee").

During the Company's two most recent fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 and January 1, 2012 through December 4, 2012, the Company has not had any disagreement with E&Y on any matter of accounting principles or practices, financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedures, which disagreements, if not resolved to E&Y's satisfaction, would have caused E&Y to make reference to the subject matter of disagreement in their reports on the Company's consolidated financial statements. In addition, during such periods, there were no "reportable events" as that term is defined in Item 304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K. E&Y's reports on the Company's consolidated financial statements as of and for the fiscal years ended December 31, 2011 and 2010 did not contain any adverse opinion or a disclaimer of opinion, nor were they qualified or modified as to uncertainty, audit scope or accounting principles.

On December 10, 2012, the Company, in connection with the previously disclosed dismissal of its independent registered accounting firm, approved the engagement of Deloitte & Touche LLP ("D&T") as the Company's new independent registered public accounting firm beginning with the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012. The engagement of D&T had previously been approved by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of the Company on November 28, 2012.

We maintain disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that information required to be disclosed in reports filed or submitted under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, summarized and reported, within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC, and is accumulated and communicated to management, including the President and Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer, to allow for timely decisions regarding required disclosure. There are inherent limitations to the effectiveness of any system of disclosure controls and procedures, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of the controls and procedures. As of December 31, 2012, the end of the period covered by this Annual Report on Form 10-K, our management, with the participation of our principal executive officers and principal financial officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) of the Exchange Act. Based on that evaluation, our principal executive officers and principal financial officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective because of a material weakness in internal controls related to management's review of the valuation of goodwill as of December 31, 2012.

The management of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. (the "Company") is responsible for the preparation, integrity and fair presentation of the consolidated financial statements appearing in our periodic filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The consolidated financial statements were prepared in conformity with United States generally accepted accounting principles appropriate in the circumstances and, accordingly, include certain amounts based on our best judgments and estimates.

Management is also responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting as such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Internal control over financial reporting is a process to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of our financial reporting in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Our internal control over financial reporting includes a program of internal audits and appropriate reviews by management, written policies and guidelines, careful selection and training of qualified personnel including a dedicated Compliance department and a written Code of Business Conduct and Ethics adopted by our Board of Directors, applicable to all of our directors, officers and employees.

Internal control over financial reporting includes maintaining records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect our transactions; providing reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary for preparation of our financial statements; providing reasonable assurance that receipts and expenditures of company assets are made in accordance with management authorization; and providing reasonable assurance that unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of company assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements would be prevented or detected in a timely manner. Because of its inherent limitations, including the possibility of human error and the circumvention or overriding of control procedures, internal control over financial reporting is not intended to provide absolute assurance that a misstatement of our financial statements would be prevented or detected. Therefore, even those internal controls determined to be effective can provide only reasonable assurance with respect to financial statement preparation and presentation.

Management conducted an evaluation of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting based on the framework in Internal Control—Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. Based on this evaluation, management concluded that the Company's internal control over financial reporting was not effective because of a material weakness in internal controls related to management's review of the valuation of goodwill as of December 31, 2012 (as described below).

The effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting was not subject to attestation by our independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to an exemption for issuers that are not "large accelerated filers" nor "accelerated filers" set forth in Section 989G(a) set forth in the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act enacted into federal law in July 2010.

There has been no change in our internal control over financial reporting during the quarter ended December 31, 2012 that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting, other than as set forth below. Management's report on internal control over financial reporting is included above.

We have internal controls pertaining to the valuation of goodwill. During the fourth quarter of 2012, we identified a miscalculation in the valuation analysis related to the valuation of goodwill. We determined that the error was caused by the fact that certain controls relating to the valuation process were not at a precise enough level regarding (i) the review of certain inputs into the goodwill valuation

analysis provided to a third-party specialist and (ii) the review of the results of the third-party specialist valuation analysis. Management determined that these control deficiencies constituted a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2012.

We are in the process of developing and implementing new processes and procedures to remediate the material weakness that existed in our internal control over financial reporting with respect to the valuation of goodwill as of December 31, 2012, as well as the continued improvement of our overall system of internal controls over financial reporting with respect to goodwill valuation, including a review of the underlying assumptions and inputs to the valuation specialists, as well as a review of the underlying schedules related to the output of the calculation of the impairment values.

Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Executive Officers, Directors and Key Employees

Our executive officers, directors and key employees and their ages and position are as follows:

Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., F.A.C.R., F.A.C.R.O. is one of our founders and has served as a director since 1988 and as its President and Chief Executive Officer since April 1997. Dr. Dosoretz is also employed as a physician by our wholly-owned subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Prior to founding the Company, Dr. Dosoretz served as attending physician at the Massachusetts General Hospital. He also was an Instructor and Assistant Professor of Radiation Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Research Fellow of the American Cancer Society. Upon moving to Fort Myers, Florida, he was appointed to the Clinical Faculty as a Voluntary Associate Professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine. He also has been a visiting Professor at Duke University Medical School and is a Distinguished Alumni Visiting Professor in Radiation Oncology at Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School. Dr. Dosoretz is board certified in Therapeutic Radiology by the American Board of Radiology. He is a Fellow of the American College of Radiation Oncology and of the American College of Radiology and is a member of the International Stereotactic Radiosurgery Society, the American Society for Therapeutic Radiology and Oncology and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Dr. Dosoretz graduated from the University of Buenos Aires School of Medicine with the Gold medal for being top of his class, and served his residency in Radiation Oncology at the Department of Radiation Medicine at the Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, where he was selected Chief Resident of the department. Dr. Dosoretz's role as founder, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, history with the Company and significant operating experience in the health care industry and extensive board experience led to the conclusion that Dr. Dosoretz should serve as a director of the Company.

Bryan J. Carey has been a member of our board of directors since April 2009 and was appointed Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer in January 2012. He was previously our interim Chief Financial Officer from September 2009 to March 2010 and May 2011 to December 2011. Mr. Carey is a Senior Advisor at Vestar, primarily focused on Healthcare investments. He joined Vestar in 2000, having been Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Managing Director of the European operations of Aearo Corporation, a Vestar portfolio company. Mr. Carey is currently a director and member of the audit committee of DeVilbiss Healthcare, LLC. Mr. Carey was a director of Joerns Healthcare, LLC until August 2010 and was a director and member of the audit committee of Sunrise Medical, Inc. until December 2012. He received his A.B. in economics from Georgetown University and his M.B.A. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Carey's experience in the health care industry and collective board experience, experience as the Company's interim Chief Financial Officer and background including his personal involvement in the healthcare field led to the conclusion that Mr. Carey should serve as a director of the Company.

Joseph Biscardi has served as the Company's Controller and Chief Accounting Officer since February 2008 and joined Radiation Therapy Services, Inc, a wholly owned subsidiary of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc as its Vice President, Assistant Treasurer, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer since June 1997. Prior to joining us, Mr. Biscardi worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP from 1993 to 1997. Mr. Biscardi holds a B.B.A. in accounting from Hofstra University. He is a Certified Public Accountant in New York and a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a member of the Healthcare Financial Management Association and a member of the Financial Executives International.

James L. Elrod, Jr. has been served as President of the Company and as a member of the Company's board of directors since February 2008. Mr. Elrod is a Managing Director of Vestar. Prior to joining Vestar in 1998, Mr. Elrod was Executive Vice President, Finance and Operations for Physicians Health Service, a public managed care company. Prior to that, he was a Managing Director and Partner of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. Mr. Elrod is currently a director of National Mentor Holdings, Inc. and was a director of Joerns Healthcare, LLC until August 2010 and Essent Healthcare, Inc. until December 2011. Mr. Elrod received his A.B. from Colgate University and his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Mr. Elrod's experience in the health care industry and collective board experience, financial experience, and diverse personal background led to the conclusion that Mr. Elrod should serve as a director of the Company.

Robert L. Rosner has been a member of our board of directors since February 2012. Mr. Rosner was a founding partner of Vestar in 1988 and was previously with the Management Buyout Group at The First Boston Corporation. Mr. Rosner is currently a director of Seves S.p.a. and Group OGF and was previously a director of AZ Electronic Materials S.A. until November 2010 and Sunrise Medical, Inc. until December 2012. He serves as a member of the Graduate Executive Board of The Wharton School and is a Trustee of The Lawrenceville School. Mr. Rosner received a B.A. in Economics from Trinity College and an M.B.A. with Distinction from The Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Rosner's experience in the health care industry and collective board experience, financial experience, and diverse personal background led to the conclusion that Mr. Rosner should serve as a director of the Company.

Erin L. Russell has served as a Vice President of the Company and as a member of the Company's board of directors since February 2008. Ms. Russell is a Principal of Vestar, and is primarily focused on Healthcare investments. Ms. Russell joined Vestar in 2000. Previously, she was a member of the mergers and acquisitions group at PaineWebber, Inc. Ms. Russell is currently a director and a member of the audit committee of DynaVox Inc. and a director of DeVilbiss Healthcare. In addition, she serves on the National Advisory Board of the Jefferson Scholars Foundation at the University of Virginia. Ms. Russell received a B.S. from the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and her M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Ms. Russell's experience in the health care industry board experience and diverse personal background led to the conclusion that Ms. Russell should serve as a director of the Company.

James H. Rubenstein, M.D. has served as a director of the Company since February 2008. Dr. Rubenstein is also employed as a physician by our wholly-owned subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Prior to joining us, Dr. Rubenstein was an Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania and later became Co-Director of its Radiation Oncology Residency Program. He also served as Chairman of the Department of Medicine for Columbia Regional Medical Center in Southwest Florida and became a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine's Department of Radiology. He is board certified in Internal Medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine and in Radiation Oncology by the American Board of Radiology. He graduated from New York University School of Medicine and completed his internship and residency in internal medicine at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, at the same time working as an Assistant Instructor in internal medicine for Harvard University's School of Medicine. Dr. Rubenstein's

years of experience in the health care industry career, particularly in radiation oncology and with the Company, as well as his familiarity with all aspects of its business led to the conclusion that Dr. Rubenstein should serve as a director of the Company.

Howard M. Sheridan, M.D. has served as a director of the Company since February 2008. Dr. Sheridan planned and developed our first radiation treatment center. Prior to joining us, Dr. Sheridan served as President of the medical staff at Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center as well as chairman of the Department of Radiology. Dr. Sheridan currently serves as Chairman of Edison Bancshares, Inc. He previously served on the Advisory Board of Southeast Bank, N.A., and also served as a founding Director and member of the Executive Compensation and Loan Committee of Heritage National Bank from 1989 until September 1996, when Heritage was acquired by SouthTrust Corporation. Dr. Sheridan has practiced interventional radiology and diagnostic radiology in Fort Myers, Florida from 1975 until accepting the chairmanship in April 2004. Dr. Sheridan is a member of the American Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association, and the American College of Radiology. Dr. Sheridan is the Vice President of 21st Century C.A.R.E., a non-profit dedicated to cancer patient assistance, research and education. Dr. Sheridan serves as Vice-Chairman of the Tulane Medical School's Board of Governors. He graduated from Tulane Medical School and completed his residency at the University of Colorado Medical Center. Dr. Sheridan is board certified by the American Board of Radiology and the American Board of Nuclear Medicine. Dr. Sheridan's board experience, years of experience in the health care industry career, particularly in radiation oncology and with the Company, as well as his familiarity with all aspects of its business since its founding led to the conclusion that Dr. Sheridan should serve as a director of the Company.

Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Executive Officers, Directors and Key Employees

The business and operations of the Company are managed through RTS, our wholly owned operating subsidiary, which is the parent of our provider subsidiaries. As such, the information set forth below and in the remaining sections of this Item 10 are presented with respect to RTS.

RTS's executive officers, directors and key employees and their ages and position are as follows:

Name		Position

Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.	60	President, Chief Executive Officer and Director
Bryan J. Carey	52	Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Director
Joseph M. Garcia	43	Chief Operating Officer
Alejandro Dosoretz	54	President and Chief Executive Officer of Medical Developers Cooperatief U.A. B.V.
Eduardo Fernandez, M.D., Ph.D	49	Senior Vice President, Physician Affairs and Medical Director for Latin America
Constantine A. Mantz, M.D.	44	Chief Medical Officer
Norton L. Travis	60	Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Madlyn Dornaus	60	Senior Vice President, Chief Compliance Officer
Joseph Biscardi	44	Vice President, Assistant Treasurer, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
Frank G. English, IV	52	Vice President International Finance and Treasurer
Daniel H. Galmarini	57	Chief Technology Officer
Antoine Agassi	49	Senior Vice President, Chief Information Officer
Kurt L. Janavitz	45	Senior Vice President of Managed Care and Network Development
Gary Delanois	60	Senior Vice President of Multispecialty Operations
James L. Elrod, Jr.	58	Chairman
Robert L. Rosner	53	Director
Erin L. Russell	39	Director
James H. Rubenstein, M.D.	58	Secretary, Medical Director and Director
Howard M. Sheridan, M.D.	68	Director

operations of Aearo Corporation, a Vestar portfolio company. Mr. Carey is currently a director and member of the audit committee of DeVilbiss Healthcare, LLC. Mr. Carey was a director of Joerns Healthcare, LLC until August 2010 and was a director and member of the audit committee of Sunrise Medical, Inc. until December 2012. He received his A.B. in economics from Georgetown University and his M.B.A. from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Carey's experience in the health care industry and collective board experience, experience as the Company's interim Chief Financial Officer and background including his personal involvement in the healthcare field led to the conclusion that Mr. Carey should serve as a director of the Company.

Joseph M. Garcia joined us in February 2011 as our Chief Operating Officer. From 2007 to 2011, prior to joining the Company, Mr. Garcia was a Vice President of Operations at DaVita, the leading dialysis company in the United States. Mr. Garcia was responsible for three divisions with 135 dialysis centers and over 40 hospital contracts. Collectively, these divisions represented approximately $425.0 million in revenue. Prior to DaVita, Mr. Garcia was the Senior Vice President of Operations at Sterling Healthcare from 2004 to 2007. Sterling was a hospital Emergency Room management company with 250 contracts across the United States. From 2000 to 2004 Mr. Garcia was a founder and Senior Vice President in both Health Network One and iHealth Technologies. Health Network One is a specialty network business that contracts with large insurance companies and is a licensed Third Party Administrator (TPA). iHealth Technologies a healthcare technology company, whose primary product is a proprietary software that is purchased by insurance companies to process and filter their claims prior to payment. From 1998 to 2000 Mr. Garcia was a Senior Vice President of Operations at Vivra, a dialysis provider, until its sale to Gambro and Magellan Behavior Health. From 1996 to 1998 Mr. Garcia was the Vice President of Corporate Development at FPA Medical Management. Mr. Garcia graduated with a B.S.B.A. and M.B.A. from Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska.

Alejandro Dosoretz joined us in March, 2011 in conjunction with our purchase of MDLLC where he serves in his current capacity as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Dosoretz has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Medical Developers Cooperatief U.A. B.V. and its predecessor organization, Vidt Centro Medico, since 2003. He previously served as President of Provincia ART from 2001-2003. From 1983-2001, Mr. Dosoretz served as an advisor to various healthcare companies in Argentina. Mr. Dosoretz has served on Argentina's Congress' Health Advisory Committee, as a general advisor to Argentina's National Institute for Retirees and Pensioners ("INSSJP"), and has represented Argentina's Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He holds a Public Accounting degree from the University of Buenos Aires, School of Economics.

Eduardo Fernandez M.D., Ph.D. joined us in 1998 and has served in his current capacity since March 2011, formerly as Senior Vice President, Physician Management from March 2009 to February 2011. Dr. Fernandez is also employed as a physician by our wholly-owned subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. Dr Fernandez, Board Certified in Radiation Oncology, was awarded his medical degree from the University of Malaga, Spain, in 1987. He was Assistant and Associate Professor of Radiology and Medical Physics in his home university. Since 1989 he was in close cooperation with the Department of Biochemical Oncology and Experimental Radiotherapy at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, including several sabbatical visits. In 1991 he defended a Doctoral Thesis on the molecular biology aspects of Photodynamic Therapy, and was awarded a Ph.D. degree from the University of Malaga. He completed his Radiation Oncology Residency at the Cleveland Clinic Foundation (Callahan Center for Radiation Oncology and Robotics) and served as the Head of Radiation Oncology at the Cleveland Clinic, Florida, where he was directly responsible for the development of the External Beam Radiation Oncology and Prostate Seed Brachytherapy Programs. Simultaneously he had an Assistant Professorship of Radiology at Ohio State University. He was Chief of Radiation Oncology at the Aventura Comprehensive Cancer Center from 2000 to 2007, Medical Director of the East Coast Operations from 2000 to 2009 and Co-VP of Medical Operations from 2008 to 2009. Dr. Fernandez is a director of 21st Century C.A.R.E., a non-profit dedicated to cancer patient assistance, research and education and a member of the Board of Chancellors of the American College of Radiation Oncology.

Constantine A. Mantz, M.D. joined us in 2000 and has served in his current capacity since February 2011 and formerly as Senior Vice President of Clinical Operations from March 2009 to February 2011. Dr. Mantz is also employed as a physician by our wholly-owned subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, Inc. Dr. Mantz received a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology from Loyola University of Chicago. He earned his medical degree from the University of Chicago's Pritzker School of Medicine and did a surgical internship at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis. Dr. Mantz completed his radiation oncology residency at the University of Chicago Hospitals, is Board Certified in Radiation Oncology by the American Board of Radiology and is a member of ACRO, the American Medical Association, ASTRO and AFROC. During the course of his career, Dr. Mantz has been involved in numerous radiation therapy research projects, published professional journal articles and given lectures and presented abstracts and poster sessions at national meetings concerning cancer treatment. Dr. Mantz has a special interest in the study and treatment of prostate cancer and breast cancer.

Norton L. Travis has been our Executive Vice President and General Counsel since February 2008 after having served as our outside general counsel for the prior five years. As outside counsel, Mr. Travis oversaw all legal aspects of the Company's expansion transactions, as well as our legal compliance program. Prior to joining us, Mr. Travis served as a partner and the Chair of the Business Practice Group of Garfunkel, Wild & Travis, P.C., a specialty health-care law firm he co-founded in 1980. Mr. Travis received his B.A. from the University of Massachusetts and his J.D. from Hofstra University School of Law.

Madlyn Dornaus joined us in 2004 and has served in her current capacity as Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer since September 2009. Ms. Dornaus received her B.S. degree from Illinois State University and her M.B.A. from the University of Illinois. Prior to joining the Company, Ms. Dornaus was National Vice President for Per Se Technologies and held operational leadership roles as Regional Vice President at Curative Health Services and Concentra. She is a Certified Healthcare Compliance Officer and a member of the Medical Group Management Association.

Joseph Biscardi joined us in June 1997 as our Vice President, Assistant Treasurer, Controller and Chief Accounting Officer. Prior to joining the Company, Mr. Biscardi worked for PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP from 1993 to June 1997. Mr. Biscardi holds a B.B.A. in accounting from Hofstra University. He is a Certified Public Accountant in New York and a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, a member of the Healthcare Financial Management Association and a member of the Financial Executives International.

Frank G. English, IV began working with the Company as an international acquisition and finance consultant in March 2009 in conjunction with our investment in Medical Developers. He joined the Company full time in August 2011, as Vice President, International Finance. In April, 2012 Mr. English assumed the additional responsibility of Corporate Treasurer. During 2010 Mr. English was Acting Treasurer of Community Education Centers. Prior to joining us in 2009, Frank worked for Banco Santander's Global Corporate and Investment Bank in New York as Managing Director, U.S. Energy and Power Group, assisting U.S. multi-nationals globally, but primarily in Latin America. Mr. English received his B.A. from Washington and Lee University and his M.B.A. from Duke University, Fuqua School of Business.

Daniel H. Galmarini has served as our Chief Technology Officer since August 1990. Mr. Galmarini received his degree in Physics from the School of Exact Sciences of University of La Plata, Argentina. In 1983, Mr. Galmarini obtained his certification of Specialist in Physics from the National Energy Commission of Argentina. Between 1983 and 1990, he became Director of Physics of multiple institutions. He has a certification in Radiotherapy Physics from the American Board of Radiology. He has held several teaching positions in universities in Argentina, and was instructor of theoretical physics in Central America and Lecturer of Medical Physics at the University of Miami in Florida. He has received several awards including the Best Scientific Work in Oncology in 1985 by the National

Academy of Medicine in Argentina on the subject of Neuro-Oncological Stereotaxy. Mr. Galmarini is the author of several publications in a variety of fields including teletherapy and brachytherapy physics of radiation therapy, neurosurgery, radiobiology and computers applied to radiation therapy. Mr. Galmarini is a member of the American Association of Physics in Medicine and the American Brachytherapy Society.

Antoine Agassi joined us in August 2012 as our Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer. Prior to joining us, Mr. Agassi held various leadership positions including President, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Information Officer at Cogent/HMG, a privately held hospitalists and intensivists organization from July 2008 to September 2011. Prior to Cogent/HMG, from September 2005 to December 2008, Mr. Agassi served as founding Director and Chair of the State of Tennessee's Governor eHealth Advisory Council on the development and implementation of electronic medical records across the state. Previously, Mr. Agassi held various other leadership positions, including Chief Technology Officer and Chief Operating Officer of Spheris (now MModal), Executive Vice President and Corporate Chief Information Officer of WebMD Transaction Services and Vice President of Information Systems at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utica-Watertown in New York. Mr. Agassi holds a Master in Business Administration from Syracuse University and a Bachelor of Computer Science from the State University of New York. Mr. Agassi was voted a member of the Health Care 100 by the Nashville Business Journal, and his work on informatics and understanding cloud computing was published by ASPATORE publishing. He serves on various boards, including Rehab Documentation and advisory board roles on eMids and iCitizen.

Kurt L. Janavitz joined us in March 2011 as our Senior Vice President of Managed Care and Network Development. Prior to joining us, Mr. Janavitz worked for Assurant Health as Vice President, Provider Management from September 2009 to March 2011 and UnitedHealth Group as Vice President, Network Management from May 2003 to September 2009. Previously, Mr. Janavitz spent a number of years working in various consulting and management roles for Ernst & Young, Tiber Group (now Navigant Consulting), Sachs Group (now Thomson Reuters Healthcare) and Dimension Data. Mr. Janavitz holds a Masters in Business Administration in Finance and Marketing with distinction from the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology summa cum laude from Tufts University. He is also an active member of Rotary International and a past board member of the American Heart Association of Southeastern Wisconsin.

Gary Delanois joined us in May of 2009 as our Senior Vice President of Multispecialty Operations. Prior to joining us, Mr. Delanois was the Administrator for a large urology group practice that was one of the first multispecialty groups to join the Company. Mr. Delanois has over twenty-four years of experience in the healthcare field, including assisting large integrated healthcare delivery systems establish Primary and Specialty Care Physician networks. Mr. Delanois began his career in business as a certified public accountant with Ernst and Young in Indianapolis, Indiana, and later progressed to a Senior Manager position with Coopers and Lybrand in Southwest Florida before leaving to become Chief Operating Officer with a diversified and multi-divisional private company. Mr. Delanois is a certified public accountant and is a member of the American Institute and the Florida Institute of Public Accountants.

James L. Elrod, Jr. has been a member of our board of directors and the Chairman of our board of directors since February 2008. Mr. Elrod is a Managing Director of Vestar. Prior to joining Vestar in 1998, Mr. Elrod was Executive Vice President, Finance and Operations for Physicians Health Service, a public managed care company. Prior to that, he was a Managing Director and Partner of Dillon, Read & Co. Inc. Mr. Elrod is currently a director of National Mentor Holdings, Inc. and was a director of Joerns Healthcare, LLC until August 2010 and Essent Healthcare, Inc. until December 2011. Mr. Elrod received his A.B. from Colgate University and his M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Mr. Elrod's experience in the health care industry and collective board experience, financial experience,

and diverse personal background led to the conclusion that Mr. Elrod should serve as a director of the Company.

Erin L. Russell has been a member of our board of directors since February 2008. Ms. Russell is a Principal of Vestar, and is primarily focused on Healthcare investments. Ms. Russell joined Vestar in 2000. Previously, she was a member of the mergers and acquisitions group at PaineWebber, Inc. Ms. Russell is currently a director and a member of the audit committee of DynaVox Inc. and a director of DeVilbiss Healthcare. In addition, she serves on the National Advisory Board of the Jefferson Scholars Foundation at the University of Virginia. Ms. Russell received a B.S. from the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia and her M.B.A. from Harvard Business School. Ms. Russell's experience in the health care industry board experience and diverse personal background led to the conclusion that Ms. Russell should serve as a director of the Company.

James H. Rubenstein, M.D. joined us in 1989 as a physician and has served as Secretary, Medical Director and as a director since 1993. Dr. Rubenstein is also employed as a physician by our wholly-owned subsidiary, 21st Century Oncology, LLC. Prior to joining the Company, Dr. Rubenstein was an Assistant Professor of Radiation Oncology at the University of Pennsylvania and later became Co-Director of its Radiation Oncology Residency Program. He also served as Chairman of the Department of Medicine for Columbia Regional Medical Center in Southwest Florida and became a Clinical Assistant Professor at the University of Miami School of Medicine's Department of Radiology. He is board certified in Internal Medicine by the American Board of Internal Medicine and in Radiation Oncology by the American Board of Radiology. He graduated from New York University School of Medicine and completed his internship and residency in internal medicine at Beth Israel Hospital in Boston, at the same time working as an Assistant Instructor in internal medicine for Harvard University's School of Medicine. Dr. Rubenstein's years of experience in the health care industry career, particularly in radiation oncology and with the Company, as well as his familiarity with all aspects of its business led to the conclusion that Dr. Rubenstein should serve as a director of the Company.

Howard M. Sheridan, M.D. is one of our founders and has served as a director since 1988. Dr. Sheridan planned and developed our first radiation treatment center. Prior to joining us, Dr. Sheridan served as President of the medical staff at Southwest Florida Regional Medical Center as well as chairman of the Department of Radiology. Dr. Sheridan currently serves as Chairman of Edison Bancshares, Inc. He previously served on the Advisory Board of Southeast Bank, N.A., and also served as a founding Director and member of the Executive Compensation and Loan Committee of Heritage National Bank from 1989 until September 1996, when Heritage was acquired by SouthTrust Corporation. Dr. Sheridan has practiced interventional radiology and diagnostic radiology in Fort Myers, Florida from 1975 until accepting the chairmanship in April 2004. Dr. Sheridan is a member of the American Medical Association, the Florida Medical Association, and the American College of Radiology. Dr. Sheridan is the Vice President of 21st Century C.A.R.E., a non-profit dedicated to cancer patient assistance, research and education. Dr. Sheridan serves as Vice-Chairman of the Tulane Medical School's Board of Governors. He graduated from Tulane Medical School and completed his

residency at the University of Colorado Medical Center. Dr. Sheridan is board certified by the American Board of Radiology and the American Board of Nuclear Medicine. Dr. Sheridan's board experience, years of experience in the health care industry career, particularly in radiation oncology and with the Company, as well as his familiarity with all aspects of its business since its founding led to the conclusion that Dr. Sheridan should serve as a director of the Company.

Our Bylaws provide that our board of directors shall consist of the number of directors so determined by its board of directors. Each director serves for annual terms and until his or her successor is elected and qualified. Vestar indirectly controls a majority of the capital stock of Parent, which in turn holds 100% of the capital stock of the Company, and as such, Vestar has the ability to elect all of the members of our board of directors. The Company is also subject to certain agreements, which provide Vestar with the ability to designate a specified number of members of our board of directors and RT Investments' board of managers. The Company's board of directors presently consists of seven members.

We are indirectly controlled by RT Investments, the direct owner of 100% of the capital stock of Parent. RT Investments does not have a formal policy regarding the procedures by which equityholders may recommend nominees to its board of managers. However, any recommendations received from equityholders pursuant to our submission procedures are generally evaluated in the same manner that potential nominees suggested by board members are evaluated. RT Investments is party to an Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement, pursuant to which the parties thereto must cause the board of managers of RT Investments to consist of four managers designated by Vestar and its affiliates, two independent managers designated by an affiliate of Vestar after consultation with Dr. Dosoretz, and two managers that are executives of the Company designated by Dr. Dosoretz after consultation with Vestar, for so long as Dr. Dosoretz is the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, subject to a reduction of the number of managers that are executives of the Company upon a decrease in the ownership interests in RT Investments held by certain management holders or failure by the Company to achieve certain performance targets. In addition, RT Investments is governed by an Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, pursuant to which Vestar and its affiliates shall determine the number of persons comprising the board of managers of RT Investments in accordance with the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement, all of whom shall be individuals as determined pursuant to the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement. See "Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence."

RTS's board of directors has the authority to appoint committees to perform certain management and administration functions. RTS's board of directors has provided for an Audit/Compliance Committee, a Capital Allocation Committee and a Compensation Committee.

Ms. Russell serves on the Audit/Compliance Committee, with Ms. Russell serving as the Chair. The Audit/Compliance Committee is responsible for reviewing and monitoring our accounting controls, related party transactions, internal audit functions and compliance with federal and state laws that affect our business and recommending to the board of directors the engagement of our outside auditors. The Audit/Compliance Committee met seven times during 2011 and six times during 2012. The Audit/Compliance Committee operates under a written charter effective as of May 16, 2008 adopted by our board of directors in May 2008. Our board of directors has determined that each of its members is financially literate. However, as we are now privately held and controlled by affiliates of Vestar, our board of directors has determined that it is not necessary to designate one or more of its Audit/Compliance Committee members as an "audit committee financial expert" at this time.

Messrs. Elrod, and Rosner and Ms. Russell serve on the Capital Allocation Committee, with Mr. Elrod serving as the Chair. The Capital Allocation Committee reviews and either approves, on behalf of the board of directors, or recommends to the Company's board of directors for approval all material expenditures related to equipment, acquisitions and de novo development, among others. The Capital Allocation Committee met six times during 2011 and one time during 2012. The Capital Allocation Committee operates under a written charter effective as of May 16, 2008 adopted by our board of directors in May 2008.

Messrs. Sheridan and Elrod serve on the Compensation Committee, with Mr. Elrod serving as the Chair. The Compensation Committee reviews and either approves, on behalf of our board of directors, or recommends to our board of directors for approval the annual salaries and other compensation of our executive officers and individual unit incentive awards. The Compensation Committee also provides assistance and recommendations with respect to our compensation policies and practices and assists with the administration of our compensation plans. The Compensation Committee met one time during each of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013. The Compensation Committee operates under a written charter effective as of May 16, 2008 adopted by our board of directors in May 2008.

Messrs. Sheridan and Elrod serve on the Compensation Committee. No executive officer of the Company served as a director of any corporation for which any of these individuals served as an executive officer, and there were no other compensation committee interlocks with the companies with which these individuals or the Company's other directors are affiliated.

Dr. Sheridan has certain related party relationships with us requiring disclosure under the rules and regulations of the SEC. These related party relationships include, among other things, ownership interests held by Dr. Sheridan in real estate partnerships, which own treatment centers and properties leased by the Company, a medical services provider, to which we provide billing and collections services and an insurance company which provides us with malpractice insurance coverage. See "Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence." Dr. Sheridan is one of our founders and previously served as Chairman of our board of directors until February 2008.

RTS's board of directors expects its members, as well as its officers and employees, to act ethically at all times and to acknowledge in writing their adherence to the policies comprising its code of conduct and as applicable, in RTS's Code of Ethics for Senior Financial Officers and Chief Executive Officer. The code of ethics is posted on our website located at www.rtsx.com under the heading "Code of Conduct for Principal Executive Officers and Senior Financial Officers" We intend to disclose any amendments to RTS's code of ethics and any waiver from a provision of such code, as required by the SEC, on our website within five business days following such amendment or waiver. Copies of the Code of Ethics are available upon request, without charge, by writing or telephoning us at Radiation Therapy Services, Inc, 2270 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33907, Attn: Corporate Secretary, (239) 931-7275.

References in this Item 11 to "we", "us", "our" and "the Company" are references to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries, consolidated professional corporations and associations and unconsolidated affiliates, unless the context requires otherwise or unless indicated otherwise.

The following discussion and analysis of compensation arrangements of our named executive officers should be read together with the compensation tables and related disclosures with respect to our current plans, considerations, expectations and determinations regarding compensation.

The primary objectives of our executive compensation policies are to attract and retain talented executives to effectively manage and lead our Company and create value for our equityholders. Through our executive compensation policies, we seek to align the level of our executive compensation with the achievement of our corporate objectives, thereby aligning the interests of our management with those of our equityholders.

The compensation of our named executive officers generally consists of base salary, annual cash incentive payments, long-term equity incentives and other benefits and perquisites. In addition, our named executive officers are eligible to receive severance or other benefits upon termination of their employment with us. In setting an individual executive officer's initial compensation package and the relative allocation among different types of compensation, we consider the nature of the position being filled, the scope of associated responsibilities, the individual's qualifications, as well as Vestar's experience with other companies in its investment portfolio and general market knowledge regarding executive compensation.

The discussion below explains our compensation decisions with respect to fiscal year 2012, our last fiscal year. Our named executive officers are Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., our President and Chief Executive Officer since April 1997, Joseph M. Garcia, our Chief Operating Officer since March 2011, Constantine A. Mantz, M.D. who joined us in 2000 and has served as our Chief Medical Officer since February 2011 and formerly as Senior Vice President of Clinical Operations from March 2009 to February 2011, Kerrin E. Gillespie, who served as our Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer from March 2010 until May 2011 and Norton L. Travis who has been our Executive Vice President and General Counsel since joining us in February 2008. Our named executive officers also include Bryan J. Carey, our Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer since January 2012, who has served as our Interim Chief Financial Officer previously from September 2009 until March 2010 and May 2011 to December 2011.

The compensation policies for our named executive officers have been designed based upon our view that the ownership by management of equity interests in our business is the most effective mechanism for providing incentives for management to maximize gains for equityholders, that annual cash incentive compensation should be linked to metrics that create value for our equityholders and that other elements of executive compensation should be set at levels that are necessary, within reasonable parameters, to successfully attract, retain and motivate optimally talented and experienced executives.

Our Compensation Committee evaluates and determines the levels and forms of individual compensation for our named executive officers. Under the term of its charter, our Compensation Committee reviews and either approves, on behalf of the Company's board of directors, or

recommends to the Company's board of directors for approval the annual salaries and other compensation for our executive officers and individual unit incentive awards. The Compensation Committee develops and determines all components of executive officer compensation, as well as provides assistance and recommendations to the Company's board of directors with respect to our incentive-compensation plans, equity-based plans, compensation policies and practices and assists with the administration of our compensation and benefit plans. Messrs. Sheridan and Elrod serve on the Compensation Committee, which met one time during each of the years 2011, 2012 and 2013.

Our Compensation Committee determines or recommends to the board of directors for determination the compensation of each of our named executive officers and solicits input from our Chief Executive Officer in determining the compensation (particularly base salary and annual cash incentive payments) of our named executive officers. The Compensation Committee does not retain compensation consultants to review our policies and procedures with respect to executive officer compensation

In the review and establishment of our compensation program, we consider the anticipated accounting and tax implications to us and our named executive officers. While we consider the applicable accounting and tax treatment of alternative forms of equity compensation, these factors alone are not dispositive, and we also consider the cash and non-cash impact of the programs and whether a program is consistent with our overall compensation philosophy and objectives.

We regularly assess our compensation policies and practices in response to current public and regulatory concern about the link between incentive compensation and excessive risk taking by corporations. We have concluded that our compensation program does not motivate imprudent risk taking and any risks involved in compensation are not reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company. In reaching this conclusion, we believe that the following risk oversight and compensation design features guard against excessive risk-taking:

We generally deliver executive compensation through a combination of annual base salary, annual cash incentive payments, long-term equity incentives and other benefits and perquisites. We believe that this mix of elements is useful in achieving our primary compensation objectives. The payment of executive compensation is determined by the Compensation Committee, and we do not target any particular form of compensation to encompass a majority of annual compensation provided to our executive officers.

Base Salary and Production Incentive Bonuses. Base salaries are intended to provide a fixed level of compensation sufficient to attract and retain an effective management team when considered in combination with other performance-based components of our executive compensation program. We believe that the base salary element is required to provide our named executive officers with a stable income stream that is commensurate with their responsibilities and competitive market conditions. Annual base salaries are established on the basis of market conditions at the time we hire an executive. Any subsequent modifications to annual base salaries are influenced by the performance of the executive, the increased/decreased duties of the executive and by significant changes in market conditions. We do not align compensation for our executive officers with market pay percentile benchmarks. In addition, we are party to physician employment agreements with our physician named executive officers, who provide significant clinical leadership in the Company beyond their executive management roles in their capacities as physicians. These physician employment agreements provide for production and ancillary incentive bonus arrangements generally based on achievement of a certain level of collections or revenues by such individuals.

The current base salaries described below were negotiated in connection with the Merger and are based in part on salaries paid prior to the Merger. A summary of the base salary and production incentive bonus arrangements with our named executive officers is as follows, except for Mr. Gillespie who joined the Company in March 2010 and left the Company in May 2011 and Joseph Garcia who joined the Company in March 2011:

Annual Cash Incentive Payments. In addition to annual base salaries, our Compensation Committee and Company's board of directors generally award annual cash incentive payments to our named executive officers. The annual cash incentive payments are intended to compensate our named

executive officers for achieving operating performance objectives in the current year that are important to our success.

Cash incentive payments are awarded pursuant to individual bonus arrangements with each named executive officer for each fiscal year. This bonus arrangement is designed to motivate, reward and acknowledge achievement by our employees by explicitly tying annual cash bonus payments to the achievement of annual performance targets based upon our consolidated financial results, as adjusted based upon individual performance objectives. Our performance-based bonus plan is administered jointly by our Chief Financial Officer, who is responsible for monitoring the financial performance measurements, and, in respect of our executive officers, our Chief Executive Officer, who is responsible for monitoring individual performance measurements for such individuals. Our Compensation Committee approves all targets set by the Company's board of directors and payouts under our bonus arrangements. Executives are generally eligible for payments under our performance-based bonus arrangement if they have earned such payments for the prior fiscal year.

Pursuant to the terms of their executive employment agreements, certain named executive officers were eligible to earn a target annual cash incentive payment for fiscal year 2012 equal to either a defined minimum amount or a percentage of that named executive officer's annual base salary, as further described below:

After target bonus award amounts are established as a defined minimum amount or percentage of each named executive officer's base salary, the Company's board of directors establishes overall Company performance targets as the next step in determining annual cash bonus payments. For fiscal year 2012, the Company's board of directors assigned a 60% weighting to PF Adjusted EBITDA performance measure, a 40% weighting to net debt performance measure to encourage management to focus more on making long-term investments to grow our business and a discretionary bonus for the achievement of specified objectives.

At the on-target level of achievement for the PF Adjusted EBITDA performance metric, a named executive officer's bonus payment is equal to 100% of his or her target bonus amount. At the maximum target level of achievement, a named executive officer's bonus payment is equal to 200% of his target bonus amount. At the minimum target level of achievement for PF Adjusted EBITDA and Net Debt performance measures, a named executive officer's bonus payment is equal to 25% and 15%, respectively, of his target bonus amount. Bonus payments for actual results that fall between the minimum and maximum target performance levels are adjusted on a linear basis.

The following table illustrates our overall performance in relation to our targets for PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets as well as achievement of specified objectives for fiscal year 2012:

Our bonus plan for fiscal year 2012 is structured in the same manner as it was for fiscal year 2011, with financial performance being evaluated against PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets and achievement of specified objectives. The timing of payments under the bonus plan for fiscal year 2012 is expected to be consistent with that for fiscal year 2011.

Discretionary Cash Bonuses. The compensation committee awarded a discretionary cash bonus to the executive management team for the achievement of certain milestone accomplishments. The 2012 discretionary cash bonus amounts awarded to the executive management team are noted in the following summary compensation table under the caption "non-equity incentive plan compensation.

The compensation committee determined the discretionary bonus awards based on the 2012 milestone accomplishments which included the following:

Discretionary Cash Bonuses and Minimum Cash Performance Bonuses. In addition to the amounts described above that were awarded under our Annual Cash Incentive Payments in 2012, the Company's board of directors awarded a discretionary cash bonus in fiscal year 2012 to Mr. Travis in the amount of $141,565 in recognition of his work related to our business development activities and a minimum cash performance bonus in fiscal year 2012 to Mr. Carey in the amount of $200,000 associated with his employment with the Company. Although the Compensation Committee does not anticipate that discretionary cash bonuses and minimum cash performance bonuses will be routinely awarded, it reserves the right to make such awards in the future as circumstances warrant.

Long-Term Equity Incentives. We believe that our long-term financial success is achieved in part through an ownership culture that encourages our named executive officers to focus on our long-term performance through the use of equity-based compensation incentives.

The capital structure of RT Investments consists of six different classes of limited liability company units: non-voting preferred equity units, Class A voting equity units, Class MEP non-voting equity units, Class EMEP non-voting equity, units Class L non-voting equity units and Class G non-voting equity units.

On February 21, 2008, in connection with the Merger, we allowed our management to invest in RT Investments by exchanging all or a portion of their shares in the predecessor Company's common stock into non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments and Class A voting equity units of RT Investments and the number of non-voting preferred equity units and Class A voting equity units of RT Investments held by our named executive officers is set forth in "Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management."

Effective as of June 11, 2012, RT Investments entered into the Amended LLC Agreement. The Amended LLC Agreement established new classes of equity units (such new units, the "2012 Plan") in RT Investments in the form of Class MEP Units, Class EMEP Units, Class L Units and Class G Units for issuance to employees, officers, directors and other service providers, establishes new distribution entitlements related thereto, and modifies the distribution entitlements for holders of Preferred units and Class A Units of RT Investments. In addition to the Preferred Units and Class A Units of RT Investments, the Amended LLC Agreement authorized for issuance under the 2012 Plan 1,100,200 units of limited liability company interests consisting of 1,000,000 Class MEP Units, 100,000 Class EMEP Units, 100 Class L Units, and 100 Class G Units. The Amended LLC Agreement also provides that any forfeited or repurchased Class EMEP Units may be reallocated by Dr. Dosoretz, in his sole discretion, for so long as he is Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Amended LLC Agreement provides for the cancellation of RT Investments' existing Class B and Class C incentive equity units.

Generally, for Class MEP units awarded, 66.6% vest upon issuance, while the remaining 33.4% vest on the 18 month anniversary of the issuance date. There are no performance conditions for the MEP units to vest. For newly hired individuals after January 1, 2012, vesting occurs at 33.3% in years one and two, and 33.4% in year three of the individual's hire date. In the event of a sale or public offering of the Company prior to termination of employment, all unvested Class MEP units would vest upon consummation of the transaction. The MEP units are eligible to receive distributions only upon a return of all capital invested in RT Investments, plus the amounts to which the Class EMEP Units, are entitled to receive under the Amended LLC Agreements.

Vesting of the Class EMEP units is dependent upon achievement of an implied equity value target. The right to receive proceeds from vested units is dependent upon the occurrence of a qualified sale or liquidation event. Specifically, the percentage of EMEP units that vest is based on the implied value of the Company's equity, to be measured quarterly beginning December 31, 2012. 25% of the awards will be eligible for vesting if the "implied equity value" exceeds a predetermined threshold, with 50% incremental vesting eligibility if the implied value exceeds several higher thresholds for at least two consecutive quarters. The implied equity value per the Amended LLC Agreement is a multiple of EBITDA (earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization) as defined in the Amended LLC Agreement.

Dr. Dosoretz, received Class L Unit awards in addition to Class MEP and Class EMEP Units. The Class L Units rank lower than the Class MEP and EMEP Units in the waterfall distribution, and will not receive distributions until and unless the performance conditions that result in vesting of the EMEP units occurs. The terms of the Class L unit award to Dr. Dosoretz do not have any service or performance conditions. The Class L units vest upon issuance, and the fair value of the units awarded was recognized upon issuance

In addition to the 2012 equity-based incentive plans, Messrs. Carey and Garcia also received Preferred and Class A Unit awards, entitling them to participate in distributions in accordance with the waterfall distribution of the Amended LLC Agreement. Mr. Carey was granted 296 units and 5,625 units, of Preferred and Class A units, respectively. Mr. Garcia was granted 500 units and 25,000 units, of Preferred and Class A units, respectively.

For Mr. Carey, 33.3% of the Preferred and Class A awards vest on January 1, 2013, with the remaining 66.7% vesting in equal amounts on January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015. For Mr. Garcia, 33.3% of the Preferred and Class A awards vest upon issuance, with the remaining 66.7% vesting in equal amounts on February 7, 2013 and February 7, 2014. Any unvested shares would vest automatically upon the occurrence of a sale or liquidation event, provided the executives remain employed by the Company at the time of the event. Vested shares are subject to forfeiture only in the event of termination for cause, or engaging in prohibited activities.

The vesting schedule for the units described above was designed to motivate our named executive officers and other members of management to enhance our financial and operational performance and equity value over the long-term as well as to promote executive retention.

The following table presents the outstanding grants of Class MEP non-voting equity units and Class EMEP non-voting equity units to our named executive officers as of December 31, 2012:

Deferred Compensation Plan. We offer our named executive officers the opportunity to participate in our 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan ("401(k) Plan"), which is a tax-qualified plan. Our discretionary contributions to the 401(k) Plan are based upon our annual financial performance.

Other Benefits. We also provide various other benefits to certain of our named executive officers that are intended to be part of a competitive compensation program. These benefits include:

We believe that these benefits are comparable to those offered by other companies.

Our named executive officers are entitled to certain severance benefits as set forth in their respective employment agreements in the event of termination of employment. We believe these benefits are an essential element of our compensation program for our named executive officers and assist us in recruiting and retaining talented individuals. Our Compensation Committee believes that these benefits are valuable as they address the valid concern that it may be difficult for our named executive officers to find comparable employment in a short period of time in the event of termination. The severance benefits may differ for named executive officers depending on the positions they hold and how difficult it might be or how long it might take for them to find comparable employment. The employment agreements of our named executive officers do not contain change in control benefit provisions providing for payments but the Management Unit Subscription Agreements for Class MEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments and Class EMEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments to contain certain acceleration provisions in the event of a sale of the Company.

The following table provides summary information concerning compensation paid or accrued by us to or on behalf of our named executive officers for services rendered to us during the prior three fiscal years.



Daniel E. Dosoretz M.D.	2012	2,000,000	27,042	1,469,686	350,000	118,305	(3)	3,965,033
President, Chief Executive Officer	2011	2,000,000	25,065	—	600,000	22,047	(3)	2,647,112
and Director	2010	2,000,000	29,479	—	600,000	87,154	(3)	2,716,633
Joseph M. Garcia,	2012	400,000	—	1,381,104	192,000	65	(5)	1,973,169
Chief Operating Officer	2011	346,154	50,000	—	200,000	—		596,154
	2010	—	—	—	—	—		—
Constantine A. Mantz, M.D.	2012	1,100,000	312,675	367,262	—	68	(5)	1,780,005
Chief Medical Officer	2011	961,000	570,895	—	—	30	(5)	1,531,925
	2010	840,000	637,479	—	—	—		1,477,479
Norton L. Travis	2012	900,000	141,565	941,733	—	320	(5)	1,983,618
Executive Vice President and	2011	900,000	50,000	—	200,000	129	(5)	1,150,129
General Counsel	2010	900,000	60,000	—	120,000	2,450	(4)	1,082,450
Kerrin Gillespie(5)	2011	161,981	—	—	—	29	(5)	162,010
former Chief Financial Officer	2010	307,692	60,000	—	76,000	—		443,692
Bryan J. Carey	2012	475,000	200,000	1,298,162	250,000	135	(5)	2,223,297
Chief Financial Officer	2011	—	—	—	—	100,000	(7)	—
	2010	—	—	—	—	—		—

The following table provides supplemental information relating to grants of plan-based awards to our named executive officers in fiscal 2012.

	Payout Levels Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards

	Grant Date(1)		Target (#)		Unit Class	Grant Date Fair Value of Equity Awards($)(2)
Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.		6/11/12		70,000	Class MEP		232,400	—
		6/11/12		5,000	Class EMEP		194,700	—
		6/11/12		100	Class L		1,042,586	—
Joseph M. Garcia		6/11/12		500	Preferred		237,480	—
		6/11/12		25,000	Class A		114,000	—
		6/11/12		136,364	Class MEP		452,728	—
		6/11/12		14,815	Class EMEP		576,896	—
Constantine A. Mantz, M.D.		6/11/12		45,455	Class MEP		150,911	—
		6/11/12		5,556	Class EMEP		216,351	—
Norton L. Travis		6/11/12		127,273	Class MEP		422,546	—
		6/11/12		13,333	Class EMEP		519,187	—
Bryan J. Carey		6/11/12		296	Preferred		140,588	—
		6/11/12		5,625	Class A		25,650	—
		6/11/12		145,455	Class MEP		482,911	—
		6/11/12		16,667	Class EMEP		649,013	—

The following table provides information regarding outstanding equity awards held by our named executive officers as of the end of fiscal 2012.

	Stock Awards

						Equity Incentive Plan Awards
	Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested(#)			Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested($)(c)		Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested(#)			Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested($)(c)
Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.		23,380	Class MEP Units(a)	$	21,743		5,000	Class EMEP Units(a)	$	107,600
Joseph M. Garcia.		45,546	Class MEP Units(a)		42,357		14,815	Class EMEP Units(a)		318,819
		333	Preferred Units(b)		145,900
		16,667	Class A Units(b)	$	33,667
Constantine A. Mantz, M.D.		15,182	Class MEP Units(a)		14,119		5,556	Class EMEP Units(a)		119,565
Norton L. Travis		42,509	Class MEP Units(a)		39,534		13,333	Class EMEP Units(a)		286,926
Bryan J. Carey		48,582	Class MEP Units(a)		45,181		16,667	Class EMEP Units(a)		358,674
		296	Preferred Units(b)		129,559
		5,625	Class A Units(b)		11,363

(a): Granted on June 11, 2012 in connection with the initial grants under the RT Investments equity-based incentive plan. The vesting measurement date, as set forth in the relevant subscription agreement, for these units is June 11, 2012. The Class MEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments time vest 66.6% upon issuance, while the remaining 33.4% vest on the 18 month anniversary of the issuance date and the Class EMEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments vest upon achievement of an implied equity value target. The right to receive proceeds from vested units is dependent upon the occurrence of a qualified sale or liquidation event, as explained in more detail above, under "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Long-Term Equity Incentives."
(b): For Mr. Carey, 33.3% of the Preferred and Class A awards vest on January 1, 2013, with the remaining 66.7% vesting in equal amounts on January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015. For Mr. Garcia, 33.3% of the Preferred and Class A awards vest upon issuance, with the remaining 66.7% vesting in equal amounts on February 7, 2013 and February 7, 2014. Any unvested shares would vest automatically upon the occurrence of a sale or liquidation event, provided the executives remain employed by the Company at the time of the event. Vested shares are subject to forfeiture only in the event of termination for cause, or engaging in prohibited activities, as explained in more detail above, under "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Long-Term Equity Incentives."
(c): Payout value represents fair market value determined as of fiscal year-end, which is $0.93 per Class MEP non-voting equity unit of RT Investments, $21.52 per Class EMEP non-voting equity unit of RT Investments, $437.70 per Preferred unit of RT Investments and $2.02 per Class A equity unit of RT Investments.

No options were issued, outstanding or exercised during fiscal 2012. For purposes of this disclosure item, no units were vested during fiscal 2012 such that value was realized, as the Company could repurchase at cost the units of any executive who terminated his or her employment voluntarily during fiscal 2012. However, if an executive officer were terminated without cause or resigned for good reason as of the last day of the fiscal year, he or she would be entitled to receive proceeds for a portion of his or her units. See "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Treatment of Equity Interests in Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc." below.

The Company does maintain a nonqualified deferred compensation plans. None of the named executives participated in the nonqualified deferred compensation plan in 2012.

Executive and Physician Employment Agreements with Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.

Executive Employment Agreement. We have entered into an Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, dated effective as of June 11, 2012, with Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., pursuant to which Dr. Dosoretz serves as our President and Chief Executive Officer. The employment term is a five-year term and provides Dr. Dosoretz with the option to further extend the initial term thereof by an additional two years at any time prior to the second anniversary of the date thereof.

Dr. Dosoretz is currently entitled to receive an annual base salary of $1,500,000 and entitled to such increases in his annual base salary as may be determined by the Company's board of directors or compensation committee from time to time. With respect to the 2010 fiscal year and each full fiscal year during the employment term, Dr. Dosoretz is also eligible to earn an annual cash incentive payment of not less than $1,500,000, the actual amount of the bonus to be determined by the Company's board of directors pursuant to a bonus plan based on factors including, without limitation, the Company's achievement of PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets. PF Adjusted EBITDA also includes certain adjustments, such as loss on extinguishment of debt, non-cash impairment losses and gains/losses on disposal of assets, minority interest, equity-based compensation, employee severance and other costs, acquisition costs, management fee to Vestar, adjustment related to sale-leaseback accounting, litigation expenses, non-cash rent expense and other adjustments.

Dr. Dosoretz is also entitled to participate in our employee benefit plans on the same basis as those benefits are generally made available to our other officers. Also, Dr. Dosoretz shall be entitled to use the Company's corporate jet in a manner consistent with past practice, and in addition to use of the plane in connection with the conduct of business on behalf of the Company, he is entitled to 200 hours of usage per year for personal use. We have also agreed to indemnify Dr. Dosoretz in connection with his capacity as our director and officer.

If Dr. Dosoretz resigns or otherwise voluntarily terminates his employment and the termination is not for good reason during the term of the agreement, he will be entitled to receive his base salary accrued and unpaid through the date of termination and his earned and unpaid annual cash incentive payment, if any, for the fiscal year prior to the termination date. Dr. Dosoretz shall also receive any nonforfeitable benefits already earned and payable to him under the terms of any deferred compensation, incentive or other benefit plan maintained by the Company, payable in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan (all amounts in this section are referred to as "Accrued Compensation").

If Dr. Dosoretz's employment is terminated by us without "cause" (as defined in his employment agreement) or by Dr. Dosoretz for "good reason" (as defined in his employment agreement), subject to his execution of a release of claims against us and his continued compliance with the restrictive covenants described below, and in addition to the payment of Accrued Compensation, the Company is obligated to make monthly payments to Dr. Dosoretz for a period of 24 months after his termination date. Each monthly payment shall be equal to ¹/12^th of the sum of (i) Dr. Dosoretz's annual base salary, as in effect at the termination date, plus (ii) the amount equal to the sum of his bonuses for the three prior years divided by three. Dr. Dosoretz shall also be permitted to continue participation at the Company's expense in all benefit and insurance plans, coverage and programs for one year in which he was participating prior to the termination date.

If Dr. Dosoretz's employment terminates due to a "disability" (as defined in his employment agreement), he will be entitled to receive the Accrued Compensation and any other disability benefits payable pursuant to any long-term disability plan or other disability program or insurance policies maintained or provided by the Company. If Dr. Dosoretz dies during the term of his employment term, the Company shall pay to his estate a lump sum payment equal to the sum of (i) his Accrued Compensation and (ii) the board of director's good faith estimated annual cash incentive payment for the fiscal year in which the death occurs (on a pro rate basis for the number whole or partial months in the fiscal year in which the death occurs through the date of death) based on the performance of the Company at the time of his death. In addition, the death benefits payable pursuant to any retirement, deferred compensation or other employee benefit plan maintained by the Company shall be paid to the beneficiary designated by Dr. Dosoretz in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan.

Dr. Dosoretz' Executive Employment Agreement also provides that if his Physician Employment Agreement is terminated for any reason, but his Executive Employment Agreement is not, Dr. Dosoretz' annual base salary under the Executive Employment Agreement shall be increased to $2,000,000.

Dr. Dosoretz is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term, and at all times during his employment term and ending on the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the Executive Employment Agreement and (ii) three years after his termination date, Dr. Dosoretz covenants not to compete with us, not to interfere or disrupt the relationships we have with any joint venture party, any patient, referral source, supplier or other person having a business relationship with the Company, not to solicit or hire any of our employees and not to publish or make any disparaging statements about us or any of our directors, officers or employees. If Dr. Dosoretz breaches or threatens to breach these covenants, the Company shall be entitled to temporary and injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, to enforce such provisions in any action or proceeding instituted in any court in the State of Florida having subject matter jurisdiction. The provision with respect to injunctive relief shall not, however, diminish the Company's right to claims and recover damages.

Physician Employment Agreement. In addition, we have entered into an Amended and Restated Physician Employment Agreement, dated as of June 11, 2012, with Dr. Dosoretz, pursuant to which Dr. Dosoretz shall provide medical services as a radiation oncologist at such locations as are mutually agreed. The employment term is a five-year term and provides Dr. Dosoretz with the option to further extend the initial term thereof by an additional two years at any time prior to the second anniversary of the date thereof. For services rendered under the Physician Employment Agreement, Dr. Dosoretz shall receive an annual base salary of $500,000, and the Company shall be obligated to pay all medical malpractice insurance premiums during employment and any "tail" coverage premiums after termination or expiration of this agreement.

Dr. Dosoretz may voluntarily terminate this agreement prior to the end of the term with or without giving notice and the Company may terminate this agreement without cause at any time. The Company may terminate the agreement due to a "disability" (as defined in the agreement) and the agreement will automatically terminate upon Dr. Dosoretz's death. If the Executive Employment Agreement is terminated for any reason, the Company shall have the right, but not the obligation to terminate the Physician Employment Agreement, without any liability or obligation to him, other than any Accrued Compensation. If the Executive Employment Agreement is terminated for any reason, but the Physician Employment Agreement is not terminated, the Physician Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, except that (i) Dr. Dosoretz's base salary shall be increased to $1,500,000; (ii) Dr. Dosoretz shall be obligated to work five days per week rather than up to two days per week as currently contemplated under the Physician Employment Agreement, and (iii) Dr. Dosoretz shall be eligible to participate in such other bonus and benefit plans afforded other

senior physicians of the Company and receive comparable fringe benefits to such other senior physicians.

Dr. Dosoretz is also subject to covenants not to compete under the Physician Employment Agreement whereby in the event of the termination of this agreement for any reason, Dr. Dosoretz agrees, with certain exceptions, not to directly or indirectly engage in the practice of radiation therapy or oncology, or otherwise compete with us (as defined in the agreement) for a period beginning on the date of the Physician Employment Agreement and ending on the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the Physician Employment Agreement and (ii) three years after his termination date.

We have entered into an executive employment agreement, dated effective as of March 1, 2011, with Joseph M. Garcia, pursuant to which Mr. Garcia serves as Chief Operating Officer. The employment term is a three-year term beginning February 7, 2011 with automatic two-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement. Pursuant to an amendment dated as of June 11, 2012, the initial term of the agreement was extended to April 1, 2017.

Mr. Garcia is currently entitled to receive an annual base salary of $400,000 and entitled to such increases in his annual base salary as may be determined by the Company's board of directors or compensation committee from time to time. With respect to the 2011 fiscal year and each full fiscal year during the employment term, Mr. Garcia is also eligible to earn an annual cash incentive payment of up to 60% of his base salary, the actual amount of the bonus to be determined by the Company's board of directors pursuant to a bonus plan based on factors including, without limitation, the Company's PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets. Mr. Garcia is also entitled to participate in our employee benefit plans on the same basis as those benefits are generally made available to our other officers. We have also agreed to indemnify Mr. Garcia in connection with his capacity as an officer.

If Mr. Garcia's employment is terminated by us during the term of the agreement, he is entitled to his Accrued Compensation.

If Mr. Garcia's employment is terminated by us without "cause" (as defined in his employment agreement) or by Mr. Garcia for "good reason" (as defined in his employment agreement), subject to his execution of a release of claims against us and his continued compliance with the restrictive covenants described below, and in addition to the payment of the Accrued Compensation, the Company is obligated to make monthly payments to Mr. Garcia for a period of 12 months after his termination date. Each monthly payment shall be equal to ¹/12^th of Mr. Garcia's annual base salary as in effect at the termination date; provided that payments that otherwise would have been made during the 60 day period after the termination date shall be made on the first payroll period after the 60th day following the termination date and shall include payment of any amounts that would have otherwise be due prior thereto.

If Mr. Garcia resigns or voluntarily terminates the agreement without "good reason", he shall be entitled to receive his Accrued Compensation.

If Mr. Garcia's employment terminates due to "disability" (as defined in his employment agreement), he will be entitled to receive the Accrued Compensation and any other disability benefits payable pursuant to any long-term disability plan or other disability program or insurance policies maintained or provided by the Company. If Mr. Garcia dies during the term of his employment term, the Company shall pay to his estate a lump sum payment equal to the sum of (i) his Accrued Compensation and (ii) the estimated annual cash incentive payment for the fiscal year in which the death occurs (on a pro rate basis for the number whole or partial months in the fiscal year in which the death occurs through the date of death). In addition, the death benefits payable pursuant to any

retirement, deferred compensation or other employee benefit plan maintained by the Company shall be paid to the beneficiary designated by Mr. Garcia in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan.

Mr. Garcia is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term, and at all times during his employment term and ending 18 months after his termination date, Mr. Garcia covenants not to compete with us, not to interfere or disrupt the relationships we have with any joint venture party, any patient, referral source, supplier or other person having a business relationship with the Company, not to solicit or hire any of our employees and not to publish or make any disparaging statements about us or any of our directors, officers or employees. If Mr. Garcia breaches or threatens to breach these covenants, the Company shall be entitled to temporary and injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, to enforce such provisions in any action or proceeding instituted in any court in the State of Florida having subject matter jurisdiction. The provision with respect to injunctive relief shall not, however, diminish the Company's right to claims and recover damages.

We have entered into a physician employment agreement with Constantine A. Mantz, dated effective as of July 1, 2003 and as amended, pursuant to which Dr. Mantz serves as our Senior Vice President of Clinical Operations and provides medical services as a radiation oncologist. The employment term commenced on July 1, 2003 and is a five-year term with automatic one-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 90 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement. Dr. Mantz is currently entitled to receive an annual base salary of $1,100,000 and the Company shall be obligated to pay all medical malpractice insurance premiums during employment and any "tail" coverage premiums after termination or expiration of this agreement if Dr. Mantz's employment is terminated without cause, or due to death or disability. Further, during Dr. Mantz's employment, the Company will provide basic hospital and major medical insurance coverage to him to the extent obtainable with coverage amounts as the Company shall in its sole discretion determine and subject to the limitations and restrictions of the Company's group health plan.

In addition, Dr. Mantz is entitled to receive an annual production incentive bonus of up to $1,000,000 based on 22.5% of the collections of professional fees (as defined) greater than $1,025,000 with respect to the Company's Lee and Monroe County, Florida radiation oncology centers and certain other ancillary services provided in the Lee County, Florida local market.

Dr. Mantz and the Company may terminate this agreement prior to the end of the term by giving 90 days notice. If an event of termination occurs for any reason, Dr. Mantz shall be entitled to (i) receive his Accrued Compensation determined as of the effective date of termination and not theretofore paid and (ii) receive or continue to receive benefits due or payable under any pension or profit sharing plan and any disability, medical and life insurance plans maintained by the Company.

Dr. Mantz is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term and at all times during his employment term and ending two years after his termination date, Dr. Mantz is agrees (i) not to practice radiation oncology at any center in Lee, Collier or Charlotte County, Florida or at those hospitals in Lee, Collier or Charlotte County, Florida where physicians employed by the Company or an affiliate of the Company are, at the time of such termination, practicing radiation oncology, and (ii) not to solicit or hire any of our employees.

We had entered into an executive employment agreement, dated effective as of February 8, 2010, with Kerrin E. Gillespie, pursuant to which Mr. Gillespie previously served as Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. The employment term was a three-year term beginning March 15, 2010

with automatic two-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement.

Mr. Gillespie was entitled to receive an annual base salary of $400,000 and was entitled to such increases in his annual base salary as may be determined by the Company's board of directors or compensation committee from time to time. With respect to the 2010 fiscal year and each full fiscal year during the employment term, Gillespie is also eligible to earn an annual cash incentive payment of up to 60% of his base salary, the actual amount of the bonus to be determined by the Company's board of directors pursuant to a bonus plan based on factors including, without limitation, the Company's PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets. Mr. Gillespie was also entitled to participate in our employee benefit plans on the same basis as those benefits are generally made available to our other officers. We have also agreed to indemnify Mr. Gillespie in connection with his capacity as an officer.

Effective May 16, 2011, Mr. Gillespie resigned without "good reason", and was entitled to receive his Accrued Compensation.

Mr. Gillespie is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term, and at all times during his employment term and ending 18 months after his termination date, Mr. Gillespie covenants not to compete with us, not to interfere or disrupt the relationships we have with any joint venture party, any patient, referral source, supplier or other person having a business relationship with the Company, not to solicit or hire any of our employees and not to publish or make any disparaging statements about us or any of our directors, officers or employees. If Mr. Gillespie breaches or threatens to breach these covenants, the Company shall be entitled to temporary and injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, to enforce such provisions in any action or proceeding instituted in any court in the State of Florida having subject matter jurisdiction. The provision with respect to injunctive relief shall not, however, diminish the Company's right to claims and recover damages.

We have entered into an executive employment agreement, dated effective as of February 21, 2008, with Norton L. Travis, pursuant to which Mr. Travis serves as our Executive Vice President and General Counsel. The employment term is a five-year term with automatic two-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement. On February 3, 2011, the employment agreement was amended to provide for a termination date of February 3, 2016 with automatic extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days prior written notice not to renew the agreement. Pursuant to an amendment dated as of June 11, 2012, Mr. Travis has the option to extend the initial term of his employment by an additional two years at any time prior to the second anniversary of the date of execution the amendment.

Mr. Travis is currently entitled to receive an annual base salary of $900,000 and entitled to such increases in his annual base salary as may be determined by the Company's board of directors or compensation committee from time to time. With respect to the 2010 fiscal year and each full fiscal year during the employment term, Mr. Travis is also eligible to earn an annual cash incentive payment of not less than $300,000, (as the Company's board of directors may, but not be obligated to adjust from time to time, the "Travis Target Bonus"), the actual amount of the bonus to be determined by the Company's board of directors pursuant to a bonus plan based on factors including, without limitation, the Company's PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets. Mr. Travis is also entitled to participate in our employee benefit plans on the same basis as those benefits are generally made available to our other officers. We have also agreed to indemnify Mr. Travis in connection with his capacity as an officer.

If Mr. Travis' employment is terminated by us during the term of the agreement, he will be entitled to receive his Accrued Compensation.

If Mr. Travis' employment is terminated by us without "cause" (as defined in his employment agreement) or by Mr. Travis for "good reason" (as defined in his employment agreement), subject to his execution of a release of claims against us and his continued compliance with the restrictive covenants described below, and in addition to the payment of the Accrued Compensation, the Company is obligated to make monthly payments to Mr. Travis for a period of 24 months after his termination date. Each monthly payment shall be equal to ¹/12^th of the sum of (i) Mr. Travis' annual base salary, as in effect at the termination date, plus (ii) the Travis Target Bonus for the year immediately prior to the year during which termination occurs.

If Mr. Travis resigns or voluntarily terminates the agreement without "good reason", he will be entitled to receive his Accrued Compensation.

If Mr. Travis' employment terminates due to his "disability" (as defined in his employment agreement), he will be entitled to receive the Accrued Compensation and any other disability benefits payable pursuant to any long-term disability plan or other disability program or insurance policies maintained or provided by the Company. If Mr. Travis dies during the term of his employment term, the Company shall pay to his estate a lump sum payment equal to the sum of (i) his Accrued Compensation and (ii) the estimated annual cash incentive payment for the fiscal year in which the death occurs (on a pro rate basis for the number whole or partial months in the fiscal year in which the death occurs through the date of death). In addition, the death benefits payable pursuant to any retirement, deferred compensation or other employee benefit plan maintained by the Company shall be paid to the beneficiary designated by Mr. Travis in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan.

Mr. Travis is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term, and at all times during his employment term and ending three years after his termination date, Mr. Travis covenants not to compete with us, not to interfere or disrupt the relationships we have with any joint venture party, any patient, referral source, supplier or other person having a business relationship with the Company, not to solicit or hire any of our employees and not to publish or make any disparaging statements about us or any of our directors, officers or employees. If Mr. Travis breaches or threatens to breach these covenants, the Company shall be entitled to temporary and injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, to enforce such provisions in any action or proceeding instituted in any court in the State of Florida having subject matter jurisdiction. The provision with respect to injunctive relief shall not, however, diminish the Company's right to claims and recover damages.

We have entered into an executive employment agreement, dated effective as of January 1, 2012, with Bryan J. Carey, pursuant to which Mr. Carey serves as Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer. The employment term is a five-year term beginning January 1, 2012 with automatic two-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement.

Mr. Carey is currently entitled to receive an annual base salary of at least $475,000 and will have the opportunity to earn an initial annual cash performance incentive bonus equal to 85% of his annual base salary based on criteria as reasonably agreed to between Mr. Carey and the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, with reasonable approval from the Compensation Committee. For each of 2012 and 2013, the minimum amount of the performance bonus payable to Mr. Carey will be $200,000. Mr. Carey also has the opportunity to earn an additional discretionary bonus upon achievement of related operating performance targets. Mr. Carey is also entitled to participate in our employee benefit plans on the same basis as those benefits are generally made available to our other officers. We have

also agreed to indemnify Mr. Carey in connection with his capacity as an officer. If Mr. Carey's employment is terminated by us during the term of the agreement, he is entitled to his Accrued Compensation.

Mr. Carey may terminate his employment at any time for any reason. If Mr. Carey resigns or otherwise voluntarily terminates his employment and the termination is not for "good reason" during the term of his employment (as defined in his employment agreement), he will be entitled to receive his base salary accrued and unpaid through the date of termination and his earned and unpaid annual cash incentive payment, if any, for the fiscal year prior to the termination date. Mr. Carey shall also receive any nonforfeitable benefits already earned and payable to him under the terms of any deferred compensation, incentive or other benefit plan maintained by RTS, payable in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan. If Mr. Carey's employment is terminated by RTS for Cause (as defined in his employment agreement), the amount he shall be entitled to receive will be limited to the Accrued Compensation.

If Mr. Carey's employment is terminated by us without "Cause" or by Mr. Carey for "good reason" (as defined in his employment agreement), subject to his execution of a release of claims against us and his continued compliance with the restrictive covenants, and in addition to the payment of the Accrued Compensation, We are obligated to make monthly payments to Mr. Carey for a period of 24 months after his termination date. Each monthly payment shall be equal to ¹/12^th of Mr. Carey's annual base salary, as in effect at the termination date plus the average performance bonus for the three years immediately prior to the termination date. In the event such termination is within six months prior to or after a "Change of Control," Mr. Carey will be entitled to such payments for a period of 36 months instead of 24 months. In addition, if Mr. Carey should elect continued COBRA coverage, we shall pay during the period Mr. Carey actually continues such coverage, the same percentage of monthly premium costs for COBRA continuation coverage as it pays of the monthly premium costs for medical coverage for senior executives generally.

Mr. Carey is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term, and at all times during his employment term and ending 24 months after his termination date, Mr. Carey covenants not to compete with us, not to interfere or disrupt the relationships we have with any joint venture party, any patient, referral source, supplier or other person having a business relationship with the Company, not to solicit or hire any of our employees and not to publish or make any disparaging statements about us or any of our directors, officers or employees. If Mr. Carey breaches or threatens to breach these covenants, the Company shall be entitled to temporary and injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, to enforce such provisions in any action or proceeding instituted in any court in the State of Florida having subject matter jurisdiction. The provision with respect to injunctive relief shall not, however, diminish the Company's right to claims and recover damages.

The following disclosure indicates the potential payments and benefits to which our named executive officers would be entitled upon termination of employment. All calculations are based on an assumed termination date of December 31, 2011. The disclosure below does not include payments and benefits to the extent they are provided generally to all salaried employees upon termination of employment and do not discriminate in scope, terms or operation in favor of the named executive officers. Potential payments upon termination attributable to Mr. Gillespie is not presented below since he did not receive any such payments as a result of his voluntarily termination of employment with the Company on May 16, 2011.

Upon the termination of the executive's employment with the Company for any reason whatsoever, (a) all unvested Class MEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments held by the executive as of the termination date shall expire and be immediately forfeited and canceled in their entirety as of the termination date and (b) all vested Class MEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments held by the executive shall remain outstanding, except that if executive's employment is terminated by the Company for cause at any time or by the executive without good reason during the two year period following the grant date, or if executive engages in any non-compete activities prohibited under his employment agreement and as further defined in the Incentive Unit Grant Agreement for Class MEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments and Class EMEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments during the time that such activities are prohibited, then all Class MEP Units (whether vested or unvested) and all Class EMEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments (whether vested or unvested) held by such terminated executive shall expire and be immediately forfeited and canceled in their entirety as of the earlier of the termination date or the date executive engages in such prohibited activities.

Upon the termination of the executive's employment with the Company for any reason whatsoever, the Class MEP non-voting equity units and Class EMEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments held by the executive shall be treated as follows:

Treatment Upon a Sale of the Company or Public Offering Prior to Termination of Employment. All Unvested Class MEP Units held by the Executive shall fully vest upon the consummation of an initial Public Offering or a Sale of the Company, in each case, if the Executive's employment with the Company or its subsidiaries has not been terminated prior to the consummation of such initial Public Offering or Sale of the Company, as applicable.

Treatment of Class EMEP Units Upon Termination of Employment Without Cause or for Good Reason. If the Executive's employment with the Company is terminated by the Company without Cause or due to Executive's resignation for Good Reason, a number of Class EMEP Units equal to the product of (a) the Vested Percentage (as defined below), multiplied by (b) the number of the Class EMEP Units (the "Vested Class EMEP Units") granted to the Executive shall (i) remain outstanding following such termination of employment, (ii) remain owned by the Executive (or his or her Permitted Transferees, as applicable), and (iii) be deemed to be a Class EMEP Unitholder under the LLC Agreement, and shall have all rights under the LLC Agreement, in each case, solely with respect to such Vested Class EMEP Units; provided, that such Vested Class EMEP Units shall be subject to the Company right to purchase the vested class EMEP units. For purposes hereof, "Vested Percentage" means the product of (x) 50.0%, multiplied by (y) the Valuation Percentage (as defined in the LLC Agreement), determined in accordance with the LLC Agreement assuming that the date of determination of the Valuation Percentage is the Termination Date (it being understood and agreed

that the Valuation Percentage shall be 0% if the Termination Date of the Executive is prior to March 31, 2013); provided, that, solely for purposes of determining the Vested Percentage hereunder, the reference to "75 percent" in the definition of "Valuation Percentage" in the LLC Agreement shall be replaced by "100 percent".

Treatment Upon a Sale of the Company or Public Offering After Termination of Employment. If the Executive's employment with the Company is terminated by the Company without Cause or due to Executive's resignation for Good Reason, no Unvested Class MEP Units or Class EMEP Units granted to the Executive shall be forfeited during the six (6) month period (as such period may be extended as described below, the "Pendency Period") immediately following the Executive's termination of employment. If, during the Pendency Period, the Company (or one of its Subsidiaries) (i) consummates an initial Public Offering or (ii) executes definitive documentation that ultimately results in the consummation of a Sale of the Company (each of clause (i) and (ii), a "Trigger Event"), then (x) all Unvested Class MEP Units granted to the Executive shall fully vest upon the occurrence of such Trigger Event and (y) all Class EMEP Units granted to the Executive shall be deemed "Vested Class EMEP Units" and be treated in the manner described above (including the proviso thereof). If the Company (or its Subsidiaries) executes definitive documentation relating to a Sale of the Company during the six (6) month period immediately following the Executive's termination of employment, then the Pendency Period shall be extended until such time as such Sale of the Company is consummated or the definitive documentation relating thereto is terminated. During the Pendency Period, the Unvested Class MEP Units granted to the Executive and the Class EMEP Units granted to the Executive shall remain owned by the Executive (or his or her Permitted Transferees, as applicable); provided, that the holder thereof shall not have any rights in respects of such Units during the Pendency Period. If no Trigger Event occurs during the Pendency Period, all Unvested Class MEP Units and all Class EMEP Units (other than the Vested Class EMEP Units) shall expire and be immediately forfeited and canceled in their entirety as of the end of the Pendency Period.

The Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis with management. Based upon this review and discussion, the Compensation Committee recommended to the Company's board of directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Registration Statement.

The following tables provide information concerning certain of our employees who are not named executive officers but who serve as a director on the Company's board of directors. We do not provide any remuneration to the members of the Company's board of directors other than to the directors listed below and the compensatory arrangements with certain of our directors designated as a named executive office other than for director services. See "Executive Compensation" and "Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions." Shares and stock options are not included in this table because none were issued during fiscal 2012 and none were outstanding at fiscal year-end. Further, changes in pension value and nonqualified deferred compensation earnings are also not included in this

table because the Company does not maintain any pension plans and the Directors did not participate in our nonqualified deferred compensation plans.

(1): Dr. Rubenstein participates in the Company's annual cash incentive bonus award plan. See "Executive Compensation." For fiscal year 2012, Dr. Rubenstein was eligible to earn an annual cash performance incentive bonus award with a target bonus amount not less than $400,000 pursuant to a bonus plan based on factors including, without limitation, the Company's achievement of PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets. The relative weight of each factor in determining the cash performance incentive bonus award was determined by the Company's board of directors. PF Adjusted EBITDA also includes certain adjustments, such as loss on extinguishment of debt, non-cash impairment losses and gains/losses on disposal of assets, minority interest, equity-based compensation, employee severance and other costs, acquisition costs, management fee to Vestar, adjustment related to sale-leaseback accounting, litigation expenses, non-cash rent expense and other adjustments. For fiscal year 2012, the Company's board of directors assigned a 60% weighting to PF Adjusted EBITDA performance measure, a 20% weighting to net debt performance measure to encourage management to focus more on making long-term investments to grow our business, and a 20% weighting to achievement of specified objectives. The specified objectives were achieved in 2010 in addition to the achievement of the PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets at the minimum levels.
(2): We entered into an Executive Employment Agreement with Dr. Sheridan in connection with the Merger under which Dr. Sheridan provides corporate executive services and support in such areas as strategic planning, mergers and acquisitions, and physician, payor and hospital relationships. This agreement provides for a base salary of $300,000 and a performance incentive bonus at the discretion of the Company's board of directors, or it's Compensation Committee. Compensation associated with the personal use of the Company's corporate aircraft in 2012 of $5,035 and life insurance premiums paid by the Company in 2012 of $367. Dr. Sheridan did not receive a discretionary bonus in fiscal 2012.
(3): We entered into an Executive Employment Agreement with Dr. Rubenstein in conjunction with the Merger in which Dr. Rubenstein serves as Secretary and Medical Director. This agreement provides for a base salary of $400,000 and participation in the annual cash performance incentive bonus award plan as described above. In addition, we entered into a Physician Employment Agreement with Dr. Rubenstein also in connection with the Merger which provided for an annual base salary of $300,000. The Physician Employment Agreement was amended in February 2010, to reduce the annual base salary to $200,000. In 2012, Dr. Rubenstein received $27,042 pursuant to a production and ancillary bonus arrangement, a $50,000 discretionary bonus for his dedicated services in the field of radiation oncology and life insurance premiums paid by the Company in 2012 of $235. $6,036 of stock awards granted on June 11, 2012 in connection with the initial grants under the RT Investments equity-based incentive plan, as explained in more detail above, under "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Long-Term Equity Incentives."

In the event that either the Physician Employment Agreement or Executive Employment Agreement is terminated for any reason, Dr. Rubenstein's annual base salary under the respective continuing agreement shall be increased to $700,000.

The following table provides supplemental information relating to grants of plan-based awards to our directors in fiscal 2012.

The following table provides information regarding outstanding equity awards held by our directors as of the end of fiscal 2012.

No options were issued, outstanding or exercised during fiscal 2012. For purposes of this disclosure item, no units were vested during fiscal 2012 such that value was realized, as the Company could repurchase at cost the units of any executive or director who terminated his or her employment voluntarily during fiscal 2012. However, if an executive or director were terminated without cause or resigned for good reason as of the last day of the fiscal year, he or she would be entitled to receive proceeds for a portion of his or her units. See "Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Treatment of Equity Interests in Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc."

Executive and Physician Employment Agreements with James H. Rubenstein, M.D.

We have entered into an Executive Employment Agreement, dated effective as of February 21, 2008, with James H. Rubenstein, M.D., pursuant to which Dr. Rubenstein serves as our Secretary and Medical Director. The employment term is a three-year term with automatic two-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement.

Dr. Rubenstein is currently entitled to receive an annual base salary of $400,000 and entitled to such increases in his annual base salary as may be determined by the Company's board of directors or compensation committee from time to time. With respect to the 2011 fiscal year and each full fiscal year during the employment term, Dr. Rubenstein is also eligible to earn an annual cash incentive payment of not less than $400,000, (as the Company's board of directors may, but not be obligated to adjust from time to time, the "Rubenstein Target Bonus"), the actual amount of the bonus to be determined by the Company's board of directors pursuant to a bonus plan based on factors including, without limitation, the Company's achievement of PF Adjusted EBITDA and net debt targets.

Dr. Rubenstein is also entitled to participate in our employee benefit plans on the same basis as those benefits are generally made available to our other officers. We have also agreed to indemnify Dr. Rubenstein in connection with his capacity as a director.

If Dr. Rubenstein resigns or otherwise voluntarily terminates his employment and the termination is not for good reason during the term of the agreement, he will be entitled to receive his base salary accrued and unpaid through the date of termination and his earned and unpaid annual cash incentive payment, if any, for the fiscal year prior to the termination date. Dr. Rubenstein shall also receive any Accrued Compensation.

If Dr. Rubenstein's employment is terminated by us without "cause" (as defined in his employment agreement) or by Dr. Rubenstein for "good reason" (as defined in his employment agreement), subject to his execution of a release of claims against us and his continued compliance with the restrictive covenants described below, and in addition to the payment of Accrued Compensation, the Company is obligated to make monthly payments to Dr. Rubenstein for a period of 24 months after his termination date. Each monthly payment shall be equal to ¹/12^th of the sum of (i) Dr. Rubenstein's annual base salary, as in effect at the termination date, plus (ii) the Rubenstein Target Bonus for the year immediately prior to the year during which termination occurs. Dr. Rubenstein shall also be permitted to continue participation at the Company's expense in all benefit and insurance plans, coverage and programs for one year in which he was participating prior to the termination date.

If Dr. Rubenstein's employment terminates due to a "disability" (as defined in his employment agreement), he will be entitled to receive the Accrued Compensation and any other disability benefits payable pursuant to any long-term disability plan or other disability program or insurance policies

maintained or provided by the Company. If Dr. Rubenstein dies during the term of his employment term, the Company shall pay to his estate a lump sum payment equal to the sum of (i) his Accrued Compensation and (ii) the board of director's good faith estimated annual cash incentive payment for the fiscal year in which the death occurs (on a pro rate basis for the number whole or partial months in the fiscal year in which the death occurs through the date of death) based on the performance of the Company at the time of his death. In addition, the death benefits payable pursuant to any retirement, deferred compensation or other employee benefit plan maintained by the Company shall be paid to the beneficiary designated by Dr. Rubenstein in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan.

Dr. Rubenstein' Executive Employment Agreement also provides that if his Physician Employment Agreement is terminated for any reason, but his Executive Employment Agreement is not, Dr. Rubenstein' annual base salary under the Executive Employment Agreement shall be increased to $700,000.

Dr. Rubenstein is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term, and at all times during his employment term and ending on the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the Executive Employment Agreement and (ii) three years after his termination date, Dr. Rubenstein covenants not to compete with us, not to interfere or disrupt the relationships we have with any joint venture party, any patient, referral source, supplier or other person having a business relationship with the Company, not to solicit or hire any of our employees and not to publish or make any disparaging statements about us or any of our directors, officers or employees. If Dr. Rubenstein breaches or threatens to breach these covenants, the Company shall be entitled to temporary and injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, to enforce such provisions in any action or proceeding instituted in any court in the State of Florida having subject matter jurisdiction. The provision with respect to injunctive relief shall not, however, diminish the Company's right to claims and recover damages.

In addition, we have entered into a Physician Employment Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008 and as amended, with Dr. Rubenstein, pursuant to which Dr. Rubenstein shall provide medical services as a radiation oncologist at such locations as are mutually agreed. The employment term is a three-year term with automatic two-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement. For services rendered under the Physician Employment Agreement, Dr. Rubenstein shall receive an annual base salary of $200,000, and the Company shall be obligated to pay all medical malpractice insurance premiums during employment and any "tail" coverage premiums after termination or expiration of this agreement.

Dr. Rubenstein may voluntarily terminate this agreement prior to the end of the term with or without giving notice and the Company may terminate this agreement without cause at any time. The Company may terminate the agreement due to a "disability" (as defined in the agreement) and the agreement will automatically terminate upon Dr. Rubenstein's death. If the Executive Employment Agreement is terminated for any reason, the Company shall have the right, but not the obligation to terminate the Physician Employment Agreement, without any liability or obligation to him, other than any Accrued Compensation. If the Executive Employment Agreement is terminated for any reason, but the Physician Employment Agreement is not terminated, the Physician Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, except that (i) Dr. Rubenstein's base salary shall be increased to $700,000; (ii) Dr. Rubenstein shall be obligated to work five days per week rather than up to two days per week as currently contemplated under the Physician Employment Agreement, and (iii) Dr. Rubenstein shall be eligible to participate in such other bonus and benefit plans afforded other senior physicians of the Company and receive comparable fringe benefits to such other senior physicians.

Dr. Rubenstein is also subject to covenants not to compete under the Physician Employment Agreement whereby in the event of the termination of this agreement for any reason, Dr. Rubenstein agrees not to directly or indirectly engage in the practice of radiation therapy or oncology, or otherwise compete with us (as defined in the agreement) for a period beginning on the date of the Physician Employment Agreement and ending on the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the Physician Employment Agreement and (ii) three years after his termination date.

We have entered into an Executive Employment Agreement, dated effective as of February 21, 2008, with James H. Sheridan, M.D., pursuant to which Dr. Sheridan provides corporate executive services and support in such areas as strategic planning, mergers and acquisitions, and physician, payor and hospital relationships. The employment term is a three-year term with automatic two-year extensions thereafter unless either party provides the other 120 days' prior written notice of its intention not to renew the employment agreement.

Dr. Sheridan is currently entitled to receive an annual base salary of $300,000 and entitled to such increases in his annual base salary as may be determined by the Company's board of directors or compensation committee from time to time. With respect to the 2011 fiscal year and each full fiscal year during the employment term, Dr. Sheridan is eligible to receive a performance incentive bonus at the discretion of the Company's board of directors, or it's Compensation Committee.

Dr. Sheridan is also entitled to use the Company's corporate jet in connection with the conduct of business on behalf of the Company and he is entitled to 25 hours of usage per year for personal use. We have also agreed to indemnify Dr. Sheridan in connection with his capacity as a director.

If Dr. Sheridan resigns or otherwise voluntarily terminates his employment and the termination is not for good reason during the term of the agreement, he will be entitled to receive his base salary accrued and unpaid through the date of termination and his earned and unpaid annual cash incentive payment, if any, for the fiscal year prior to the termination date. Dr. Sheridan shall also receive any Accrued Compensation.

If Dr. Sheridan's employment is terminated by us without "cause" (as defined in his employment agreement) or by Dr. Sheridan for "good reason" (as defined in his employment agreement), subject to his execution of a release of claims against us and his continued compliance with the restrictive covenants described below, and in addition to the payment of Accrued Compensation, the Company is obligated to make monthly payments to Dr. Sheridan for a period of 12 months after his termination date. Each monthly payment shall be equal to ¹/12^th of the sum of (i) Dr. Sheridan's annual base salary, as in effect at the termination date, plus (ii) his bonus for the year immediately prior to the year during which termination occurs.

If Dr. Sheridan's employment terminates due to a "disability" (as defined in his employment agreement), he will be entitled to receive the Accrued Compensation and any other disability benefits payable pursuant to any long-term disability plan or other disability program or insurance policies maintained or provided by the Company. If Dr. Sheridan dies during the term of his employment term, the Company shall pay to his estate a lump sum payment equal to the sum of (i) his Accrued Compensation and (ii) the board of director's good faith estimated annual cash incentive payment for the fiscal year in which the death occurs (on a pro rate basis for the number whole or partial months in the fiscal year in which the death occurs through the date of death) based on the performance of the Company at the time of his death. In addition, the death benefits payable pursuant to any retirement, deferred compensation or other employee benefit plan maintained by the Company shall be paid to the beneficiary designated by Dr. Sheridan in accordance with the terms of the applicable plan.

Dr. Sheridan is also subject to a covenant not to disclose our confidential information during his employment term, and at all times during his employment term and ending on the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the Executive Employment Agreement and (ii) three years after his termination date, Dr. Sheridan covenants not to compete with us, not to interfere or disrupt the relationships we have with any joint venture party, any patient, referral source, supplier or other person having a business relationship with the Company, not to solicit or hire any of our employees and not to publish or make any disparaging statements about us or any of our directors, officers or employees. If Dr. Sheridan breaches or threatens to breach these covenants, the Company shall be entitled to temporary and injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and permanent injunctions, to enforce such provisions in any action or proceeding instituted in any court in the State of Florida having subject matter jurisdiction. The provision with respect to injunctive relief shall not, however, diminish the Company's right to claims and recover damages.

The following disclosure indicates the potential payments and benefits to which our directors would be entitled upon termination of employment. All calculations are based on an assumed termination date of December 31, 2012. The disclosure below does not include payments and benefits to the extent they are provided generally to all salaried employees upon termination of employment and do not discriminate in scope, terms or operation in favor of the directors.

RT Investments owns 100% of the capital stock of Parent, which in turn holds 100% of the capital stock of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., the issuer of the notes in this offering. The following table sets forth certain information with respect to the beneficial ownership of RT Investments' equity units as of December 31, 2012 by: (i) each person or entity who owns of record or beneficially 5% or more of any class of RT Investments' voting securities; (ii) each of our directors, (iii) each of our named executive officers and (iv) all of our directors and executive officers as a group. Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with Rule 13d-3 under the Exchange Act. In computing the number of shares beneficially owned by a person and the percentage ownership of that person, shares of equity units subject to options held by that person that are currently exercisable or exercisable within 60 days of December 31, 2012 are deemed outstanding. Such shares, however, are not deemed outstanding for the purposes of computing the percentage ownership of any other person. The respective percentages of beneficial ownership of Class A voting equity units of RT Investments, Class MEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments, Class EMEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments and non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments owned is based on 10,290,118 shares of Class A voting equity units of RT Investments, 915,458 shares of Class MEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments, 90,743 shares of Class EMEP non-voting equity units of RT Investments and 542,010 shares of non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments outstanding as of December 31, 2012. This information has been furnished by the persons named in the table below or in filings made with the SEC. Unless otherwise indicated, the address of each of the directors and executive officers is c/o Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., 2270 Colonial Boulevard, Fort Myers, Florida 33907.

	Class A Units					Class MEP Units(3)					Class EMEP Units(3)					Preferred Units

Name of Beneficial Owner	Number(1)		Percent			Number(1)		Percent			Number(1)		Percent			Number(1)		Percent
Principal shareholder:
Funds affiliated with Vestar(2)		8,286,564		80.5	%		—		—			—		—			437,134		80.7	%
Directors and named executive officers:
Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.(4).		717,107		7.0	%		70,000		7.6	%		5,000		5.5	%		37,829		7.0	%
James L. Elrod, Jr.(5)		—		—			—		—			—		—			—		—
Bryan J. Carey(6)		5,625		*			145,455		15.9	%		16,667		18.4	%		296		*
Robert L. Rosner(7)		—		—			—		—			—		—			—		—
Erin L. Russell(8)		—		—			—		—			—		—			—		—
James H. Rubenstein, M.D.(9)		354,569		3.4	%		1,818		*			—		—			18,704		3.5	%
Alejandro Dosoretz		258,955		2.5	%		30,000		3.3	%		—		—			13,660		2.5	%
Howard M. Sheridan, M.D.		179,277		1.7	%		—		—			—		—			9,457		1.7	%
Kerrin E. Gillespie		2,392		*			—		—			—		—			126		*
Eduardo Fernandez, M.D., Ph.D.(10)		15,936		*			30,909		3.4	%		3,704		4.1	%		841		*
Constantine A. Mantz, M.D.		7,968		*			45,455		5.0	%		5,556		6.1	%		420		*
Joseph Garcia		25,000		*			136,364		14.9	%		14,815		16.3	%		500		*
Norton L. Travis(11)		14,082		*			127,273		13.9	%		13,333		14.7	%		747		*
All directors and executive officers as a group (14 persons)		1,636,684		15.9	%		820,002		89.6	%		81,668		90.0	%		85,523		15.8	%

Capital Partners V-A, L.P., Vestar Executives V, L.P. and Vestar Holdings V, L.P. and Vestar Managers V Ltd. is the general partner of Vestar Associates V, L.P. As such, Vestar Managers V Ltd. has sole voting and dispositive power over the shares held by Vestar and its affiliated funds. Vestar's co-investors, which Vestar controls, own 2,549,712 shares of Class A voting equity units of RT Investments, or approximately 25% of Class A voting equity units of RT Investments, and 134,503 shares of non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments, or approximately 25% of the preferred equity units of RT Investments. As such, Vestar and its affiliates control, and may be deemed to beneficially own 8,286,564 shares of Class A voting equity units of RT Investments, or approximately 81% of the Class A voting equity units of RT Investments, and 437,134 shares of the non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments, or approximately 81% of the preferred equity units of RT Investments, through its ability to directly or indirectly control its co-investors. Each of Vestar and its affiliated funds disclaims beneficial ownership of such securities, except to the extent of its pecuniary interest therein. The address for each of Vestar and its affiliated funds is c/o Vestar Capital Partners, Inc., 245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor, New York, New York 10167.

(3): Class MEP units and Class EMEP units are non-voting equity units of RT Investments issued under RT Investments' limited liability company agreement pursuant to which certain employees are eligible to receive incentive unit awards from an equity pool representing up to 12% of the common equity value of RT Investments following return of preferred capital, with respect to the Class MEP Units, and up to $13.5 million with respect to the Class EMEP Units.
(4): These shares are held in trusts for which Dr. Dosoretz and his descendants are beneficiaries. Dr. Dosoretz is the trustee of the trusts and as such, has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares in the trusts.
(5): Mr. Elrod is a managing director of Vestar, and therefore may be deemed to beneficially own the Class A voting equity units of RT Investments and the non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments held by Vestar, its affiliated funds and its co-investors. Mr. Elrod disclaims beneficial ownership of such securities, except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. The address for Mr. Elrod is c/o Vestar Capital Partners, Inc., 245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor, New York, New York 10167.
(6): Mr. Carey was a managing director of Vestar, and therefore may have been deemed to beneficially own the Class A voting equity units of RT Investments and the non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments held by Vestar, its affiliated funds and its co-investors. Mr. Carey disclaims beneficial ownership of such securities, except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. Mr. Carey has served as our Interim Chief Financial Officer since May 2011 and previously served as our interim Chief Financial Officer from August 2009 until March 15, 2010. The address for Mr. Carey is c/o Vestar Capital Partners, Inc., 245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor, New York, New York 10167. Effective January 1, 2012 Mr. Carey became our Chief Financial Officer.
(7): Mr. Rosner is a managing director of Vestar, and therefore may be deemed to beneficially own the Class A voting equity units of RT Investments and the non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments held by Vestar, its affiliated funds and its co-investors. Mr. Rosner disclaims beneficial ownership of such securities, except to the extent of his pecuniary interest therein. The address for Mr. Rosner is c/o Vestar Capital Partners, Inc., 245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor, New York, New York 10167.
(8): Ms. Russell is a principal of Vestar, and therefore may be deemed to beneficially own the Class A voting equity units of RT Investments and the non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments held by Vestar, its affiliated funds and its co-investors. Ms. Russell disclaims beneficial ownership of such securities, except to the extent of her pecuniary interest therein. The address for Ms. Russell is c/o Vestar Capital Partners, Inc., 245 Park Avenue, 41st Floor, New York, New York 10167.
(9): These shares are held in trusts for which Dr. Rubenstein and his descendants are beneficiaries. Dr. Rubenstein is the trustee of the trusts and as such, has sole voting and investment power with respect to the shares in the trusts.
(10): These shares are held in common Angelica Guckes, Dr. Fernandez's spouse. Dr. Fernandez and Mrs. Guckes share voting and investment powers with respect to these shares.
(11): These shares are pledged as security for a loan. The address for Mr. Travis is c/o Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., 1010 Northern Boulevard, Suite 314, Great Neck, New York 11021.

For information relating to Securities Authorized for Issuance Under Equity Compensation Plans, see "Item 5. Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities", incorporated by reference herein.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

RTS's board of directors has not adopted a written policy or procedure for the review, approval and ratification of related party transactions, as the Audit Compliance Committee Charter already requires the Audit Compliance Committee to review all relationships and transactions in which RTS and its employees, directors and officers or their immediate family members are participants to determine whether such persons have a direct or indirect material interest. Based on all the relevant facts and circumstances, RTS's Audit Committee will decide whether the related-party transaction is appropriate and will approve only those transactions that are in the best interests of RTS.

References in this Item 13 to "we", "us", "our" and "the Company" are references to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and its subsidiaries, consolidated professional corporations and associations and unconsolidated affiliates, unless the context requires otherwise or unless indicated otherwise.

Set forth below are certain transactions and relationships between us and our directors, executive officers and equityholders that have occurred during the last three years.

In California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina, we have administrative services agreements with professional corporations owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders, who are licensed to practice medicine in such states. Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein and Michael J. Katin, M.D., a former director on the Company's board of directors as well as a director on the boards of directors of several of our subsidiaries and an equityholder of RT Investments, own interests in these professional corporations ranging from 0% to 100%.

We have entered into these administrative services agreements in order to comply with the laws of such states which prohibit us from employing physicians. Our administrative services agreements generally obligate us to provide treatment center facilities, staff and equipment, accounting services, billing and collection services, management and administrative personnel, assistance in managed care contracting and assistance in marketing services. Terms of the agreements are typically 20-25 years and renew automatically for successive five-year periods, with certain agreements having 30 year terms and automatically renewing for successive one-year periods. The administrative services agreements also contain restrictive covenants that preclude the professional corporations from providing substantially similar healthcare services, hiring another management services organization and soliciting our employees, customers and clients for the duration of the agreement and some period after termination, usually three years. Monthly fees for such services may be computed on a fixed basis, percentage of net collections basis, or on a per treatment basis, depending on the particular state requirements. The administrative services fees paid to us by such professional corporations under the administrative services agreements were approximately $83.5 million, $79.7 million and $58.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

In addition, we have transition services agreements with the professional corporations owned by Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein and Katin, which correspond to the administrative services agreements. The transition services agreements provide that (i) the term of the agreements corresponds to the respective administrative services agreement and any renewals thereof, (ii) the shareholders grant us a security interest in the shares held by them in the professional corporation, and (iii) the shareholders are prohibited from making any transfer of the shares held by them in the professional corporation, including through intestate transfer, except to qualified shareholders with our approval. Upon certain shareholder events of transfer (as defined in the transition services agreements), including a transfer of shares by any shareholder without our approval or the loss of a shareholder's license to practice radiation therapy in his or her applicable state, for a period of 30 days after giving notice to us of such event, the other shareholders have an opportunity to buy their pro-rata portion of the shares being

transferred. If at the end of the 30-day period, any of the transferring shareholder's shares have not been acquired, then, for a period of 30 days, the professional corporation has the option to purchase all or a portion of the shares. If at the end of that 30-day period any of the transferring shareholder's shares have not been acquired, we must designate a transferee to purchase the remaining shares. The purchase price for the shares shall be the fair market value as determined by our auditors. Upon other events relating to the professional corporation, including uncured defaults, we shall designate a transferee to purchase all of the shares of the professional corporation.

We lease certain of our treatment centers and other properties from partnerships which are majority-owned by Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein, Sheridan, Katin and Mantz and Dr. Fernandez, our Senior Vice President, Director of Regional Operations. As of December 31, 2010, Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein, Sheridan, Katin, Fernandez and Mantz have ownership interests in these entities ranging from 0% to 100%. These leases have expiration dates through December 31, 2027, and provide for annual lease payments and executory costs, ranging from approximately $56,000 to $1.8 million. The aggregate lease payments we made to these entities were approximately $14.5 million, $15.8 million and $17.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. The rents were determined on the basis of the debt service incurred by the entities and a return on the equity component of the project's funding. Prior to completing our initial public offering in June 2004, we engaged an independent consultant to complete a fair market rent analysis for the real estate leases with the real estate entities owned by our directors, executive officers and other management employees. The consultant determined that, with one exception, the rents were at fair market value. We negotiated a rent reduction for the one exception to bring it to fair market value as determined by the consultant. Since 2004, an independent consultant is utilized to assist the Audit/Compliance Committee in determining fair market rental for any renewal or new rental arrangements with any affiliated party.

In October 1999, we entered into a sublease arrangement with a partnership, which was 62.4% owned by Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein, Sheridan and Katin, to lease space to the partnership for an MRI center in Mount Kisco, New York. Sublease rentals paid by the partnership to the landlord were approximately $673,000, $733,000 and $755,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. In December 2012, Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein, Sheridan and Katin sold their interest in the partnership.

We also maintain a construction company which provides remodeling and real property improvements at certain of our facilities. This construction company builds and constructs leased facilities on the lands owned by Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein, Sheridan and Katin. Payments received by us for building and construction fees were approximately $0.5 million, $1.4 million and $1.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Amounts due to us for the construction services were approximately $49,000 and $1.3 million at December 31, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

In connection with our plans with respect to future development of new treatment centers on land owned by or contemplated to be acquired by land partnerships owned by certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders, the terms and conditions of the transactions, including leases of such property and in some instances buildout and equipment reimbursements by us are expected to be on terms and conditions as those of similar historic transactions.

Each of our directors and executive officers who is a holder of equity units of RT Investments, including Drs. Dosoretz, Sheridan, Rubenstein, Katin, Mantz and Fernandez and Ms. Dornaus, our Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer, and Mr. Travis is a party to an Amended and

Restated Securityholders Agreement with RT Investments governing the rights and obligations of holders of units of RT Investments. The Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement provides, among other things:

The Securityholders Agreement also provides for a management agreement to be entered into among the Company, RT Investments, Parent and Vestar, which is described below.

In connection with the Merger, each of the Company, RT Investments and Parent entered into a Management Agreement with Vestar relating to certain advisory and consulting services Vestar provides to the Company, RT Investments and Parent. Under the Management Agreement, Vestar received a $10.0 million transaction fee upon the Closing for services rendered in connection with the Closing and was reimbursed for its reasonable out of pocket expenses. The Management Agreement also provides for Vestar to receive an annual management fee equal to the greater of (i) $850,000 or (ii) an amount equal to 1.0% of the Company's consolidated EBITDA, which fee will be payable quarterly, in advance. Vestar is also entitled to a fee for any financial advisory or similar services it provides in connection with a sale of the Company or a transaction relating to any acquisition, divestiture or other transaction by or involving RT Investments, Parent, the Company or any of their respective subsidiaries, subject to approval by the management managers under the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement. RT Investments, Parent and the Company must indemnify Vestar and its affiliates against all losses, claims, damages and liabilities arising out of the performance by Vestar of its services pursuant to the Management Agreement, other than those that have resulted primarily from the gross negligence or willful misconduct of Vestar and/or its affiliates.

The Management Agreement will terminate upon the earlier of (i) such time when Vestar and its affiliates hold, directly or indirectly, less than 20% of the voting power of the Company's outstanding voting stock, (ii) a Public Offering (as defined in the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement) or (iii) a sale of RT Investments, Parent or the Company in accordance with the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement.

During 2010, we paid $2.0 million to Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. for additional transaction advisory services in respect to the incremental amendments to our senior secured revolving credit facility, the additional $15.0 million of commitments to the revolver portion, and the complete refinancing of the senior subordinated notes. We paid approximately $1.3 million, $1.6 million and $1.2 million in management fees to Vestar for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

In connection with the Closing, RT Investments entered into various Management Stock Contribution and Unit Subscription Agreements with our management employees, including Drs. Dosoretz, Sheridan, Rubenstein, Katin, Mantz and Fernandez, Ms. Dornaus and Messrs. Galmarini and Travis (each, an "Executive"), pursuant to which they exchanged certain shares of the Company's common stock held by them immediately prior to the effective time of the Merger or invested cash in the Company, in each case, in exchange for non-voting preferred equity units and Class A voting equity units of RT Investments. Under the Management Stock Contribution and Unit Subscription Agreements, if an Executive's employment is terminated by death or disability, by RT Investments and its subsidiaries without "cause" or by the Executive for "good reason" (each as defined in the respective Management Stock Contribution and Unit Subscription Agreement), or by RT Investments or its subsidiaries for "cause" or by the Executive for any other reason except retirement, or the Executive violates the non-compete or confidentiality provisions, RT Investments has the right and option to purchase, for a period of 90 days following the termination, any and all units held by the Executive or the Executive's permitted transferees, at the fair market value determined in accordance with the applicable Management Stock Contribution and Unit Subscription Agreement, subject to certain exceptions and limitations. Under Dr. Dosoretz's Management Stock Contribution and Unit Subscription Agreement, he also has certain put option rights to require RT Investments to repurchase his non-voting preferred equity units and Class A voting equity units if, prior to a sale of RT Investments, Parent or the Company in accordance with the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement or a Public Offering (as defined in the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement), his employment is terminated without cause or he terminates his employment for good reason and at such time RT Investments has met certain performance targets.

Each of our directors and executive officers who is a holder of equity units of RT Investments, including Drs. Dosoretz, Sheridan, Rubenstein, Katin, Mantz and Fernandez, Ms. Dornaus, and Messrs Galmarini and Travis is a party to an Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement with RT Investments governing affairs of RT Investments and the conduct of its business. The Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement sets forth certain terms of the equity units held by members of RT Investments, including, among other things, the right of members to receive distributions, the voting rights of holders of equity units and the composition of the board of managers, subject to the terms of the Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement. Under the Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement, Vestar's prior written consent is required for RT Investments to take engage in certain types of transactions, including mergers, acquisitions, asset sales, and incur indebtedness and make capital expenditures, subject to exceptions and limitations. The Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement contains customary indemnification provisions relating to holders of units and managers and officers of RT Investments.

We have entered into employment agreements with certain of our executive officers and directors, which contain compensation, severance, non-compete and confidentiality provisions. In addition, we have employed, and continue to employ, directly or indirectly, immediate family members of certain of our directors, executive officers and equityholders, including Dr. Dosoretz's brother (as further described below), Dr. Dosoretz's daughter, Amy Fox, M.D., and Dr. Rubenstein's brother, Paul Rubenstein. Alejandro Dosoretz received compensation under an executive employment agreement of approximately $0.5 million and $1.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2011 and 2012. Amy Fox, M.D. received compensation under a physician employment agreement of approximately $283,000, $339,000 and $201,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively. Paul Rubenstein received compensation as our Director of Physician Contracting of approximately $171,000, $173,000 and $160,000 for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

We have entered into indemnification agreements with certain of our directors and executive officers prior to the Merger. The indemnification agreements provide, among other things, that the Company will, to the extent permitted by applicable law, indemnify and hold harmless each indemnitee if, by reason of his or her status as a director, officer, trustee, general partner, managing member, fiduciary, employee or agent of the Company or of any other enterprise which such person is or was serving at the request of the Company, such indemnitee was, is or is threatened to be made, a party to in any threatened, pending or completed proceeding, whether brought in the right of the Company or otherwise and whether of a civil, criminal, administrative or investigative nature, against all expenses (including attorneys' and other professionals' fees), judgments, fines, penalties and amounts paid in settlement actually and reasonably incurred by him or her or on his or her behalf in connection with such proceeding. The indemnitee shall not be indemnified unless he or she acted in good faith and in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in the best interests of the Company, or for willful misconduct. In addition, the indemnification agreements provide for the advancement of expenses incurred by the indemnitee in connection with any such proceeding to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law. The indemnification agreements terminate upon the later of five years after the date that the indemnitee ceased to serve as a director and/or executive officer or the date of the final termination of any proceedings subject to the indemnification agreements. The Company agrees not to bring any legal action against the indemnitee or his or her spouse or heirs after two years following the date the indemnitee ceases to be a director and/or executive officer of the Company. The indemnification agreements do not exclude any other rights to indemnification or advancement of expenses to which the indemnitee may be entitled, including any rights arising under the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Company, or the Florida Business Corporation Act.

In connection with the Merger, we agreed that we would not alter or impair any existing indemnification provisions then in existence in favor of then current or former directors or officers as provided in the Articles of Incorporation or Bylaws of the Company or as evidenced by indemnification agreements with us.

On January 1, 2009, we entered into a Membership Interest Purchase Agreement with Lisdey S.A. an Uruguay corporation, Alejandro Dosoretz, Dr. Daniel Dosoretz's brother, and Bernardo Dosoretz, Dr. Daniel Dosoretz's father, and the spouses of Alejandro Dosoretz and Bernardo Dosoretz, pursuant to which we purchased a 33% interest in MDLLC, an entity that is now the majority owner and operator of 26 freestanding radiation oncology practices (of which two are under development) through 15 legal entities South America, Central America and the Caribbean (which translates into us owning a 19% indirect ownership interest in the underlying radiation therapy treatment centers), and a 19%

interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A., an entity that operates a treatment center in Guatemala. We purchased the 33% interest in MDLLC and the 19% interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A. at an aggregate purchase price of approximately $12.3 million, with a four-year call option to purchase the remaining 67% in MDLLC, which would result in an ownership interest of approximately 91% in the underlying radiation oncology practices located in South America, Central America and the Caribbean, at a price based on a multiple of historical earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization. In connection with our entry into the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, Alejandro Dosoretz entered into an employment agreement with an entity located in Argentina in which we hold interests as part of a joint venture, pursuant to which he receives an annual salary of approximately $180,000 for his services.

On March 1, 2011, RTSII, RT Investments, the Company, and our wholly-owned subsidiary Main Film B.V., entered into the Membership Interest Purchase Agreements with Alejandro Dosoretz, and his spouse and Bernardo Dosoretz and his representative, to purchase the remaining 67% membership interest in MDLLC, as well as direct ownerships interests held by Alejandro Dosoretz and Bernardo Dosoretz in such entities and a 61% ownership interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion, S.A.

Under the terms of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreements, RTSII and its subsidiaries purchased an additional 72% of the remaining interests in the entities, which when combined with RTSII's purchase of a 33% interest in MDLLC in January 2009, results in a 91% ownership interest in the entities. The aggregate purchase price for the MDLLC Purchase was $82.7 million and was determined based upon a multiple of historical earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, and excess working capital. The purchase price was comprised of $47.5 million in cash, $16.05 million in Notes, $16.25 million of equity in the form of 25 shares of our common stock, and issuance of real estate located in Costa Rica totaling $0.6 million. In addition to the purchase price paid at closing, Alejandro Dosoretz also has the right to receive an earnout payment from RTSII based on a multiple of future earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization of certain radiation oncology centers acquired in the MDLLC Purchase, which such earnout payment, if any, would be paid one-half in the form of Notes and one-half in the form of equity of RT Investments. We recorded a contingent earnout accrual of approximately $2.3 million in our purchase price accounting for the MDLLC Purchase. At December 31, 2012, we estimated the fair value of the contingent earn out liability and increased the liability due to the seller to approximately $3.4 million. In connection with the MDLLC Purchase, RT Investments entered into the Contribution Agreement with Alejandro Dosoretz pursuant to which he exchanged the 25 shares of our common stock he received in the MDLLC Purchase for approximately 13,660 non-voting preferred equity units of RT Investments and approximately 258,955 Class A voting equity units of RT Investments, having an aggregate value of $16.25 million. Pursuant to one of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreements, Alejandro Dosoretz has the right to invest 10% (or more than 10% if approved by RTSII) of the cost of certain specific new radiation oncology centers of MDLLC and Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A. in exchange for a 10% ownership interest in such new centers and an additional interest, which when combined with the 10% ownership interest, would entitle him to a return of his invested capital and 20% of the residual value of such new centers. RTSII has an option to buy such interests in the new centers on the third anniversary of the closing, and Alejandro Dosoretz has a right to sell such interests in the new centers on the fifth anniversary of the closing.

In 2010, we provided medical equipment and parts inventory to MDLLC in the amount of approximately $769,000. As of December 31, 2010, amounts due from the sale of the equipment, including accrued interest were approximately $781,000. In connection with the acquisition of MDLLC, we have advanced up to $500,000 for the purchase and implementation of a new accounting software system.

We are a participating provider in an oncology network, of which Dr. Dosoretz has an ownership interest. We provide oncology services to members of the network. Payments received by us for services rendered in 2010, 2011 and 2012 were approximately $867,000, $884,000 and $1,273,000, respectively.

In October 2003, we contracted with Batan Insurance Company SPC, LTD, an entity which is owned by Drs. Dosoretz, Rubenstein, Sheridan and Katin to provide us with malpractice insurance coverage. We paid premium payments to Batan Insurance Company SPC, LTD of approximately $5.4 million, $5.7 million and $3.9 million for the years ended December 31, 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.

The board is currently composed of seven directors, none of which is likely to qualify as an independent director based on the definition of independent director under the Nasdaq rules. Because affiliates of Vestar own more than 50% of the voting common stock of RT Investments, we would be a "controlled company" under the Nasdaq rules, which would qualify us for exemptions from certain corporate governance rules of The Nasdaq Stock Market, including the requirements that the board of directors be composed of a majority of independent directors.

The following table presents fees for professional audit and other services rendered by our independent registered public accounting firms, Deloitte & Touche LLP for the year ended December 31, 2012 and Ernst & Young LLP, for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Fees for audit services included fees associated with the annual audit, reviews of the Company's quarterly reports, and services in connection with debt offerings and SEC regulatory filings. Audit-related fees principally included agreed-upon procedures and internal control analysis. Tax fees included tax compliance, tax advice, and tax planning. All other fees include fees not included in the other categories.

The audit committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant's independence and has concluded that the non-audit services provided by Ernst & Young LLP are compatible with maintaining Ernst & Young LLP's independence.

The audit committee has considered whether the provision of non-audit services is compatible with maintaining the principal accountant's independence and has concluded that the non-audit services provided by Deloitte & Touche LLP are compatible with maintaining Deloitte & Touche LLP's independence.

The audit committee approves in advance all audit and non-audit services to be performed by the Company's independent registered public accounting firms. The audit committee considers whether the provision of any proposed non-audit services is consistent with the SEC's rules on auditor

independence and has pre-approved certain specified audit and non-audit services to be provided by Deloitte & Touche LLP and Ernst & Young LLP for up to twelve (12) months from the date of the pre-approval. If there are any additional services to be provided, a request for pre-approval must be submitted to the audit committee for its consideration.

(a) Index to Consolidated Financial Statements, Financial Statement Schedules and Exhibits:

The Board of Directors and Shareholder of
Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") as of December 31, 2012 and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, changes in equity, and cash flows for period ended December 31, 2012. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. The Company is not required to have, nor were we engaged to perform, an audit of its internal control over financial reporting. Our audit included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries at December 31, 2012, and the results of their operations and their cash flows for the period ended December 31, 2012, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

The Board of Directors and Shareholder of
Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. as of December 31, 2011, and the related consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, cash flows, and changes in equity for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2011. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We did not audit the combined special-purpose financial statements of the Operating Entities of Medical Developers, LLC, majority-owned subsidiaries, which statements reflect total assets of $136 million as of December 31, 2011 and total revenues of $60 million for the ten month period then ended. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the operating entities of Medical Developers LLC, is based solely on the report of the other auditors.

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. We were not engaged to perform an audit of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Our audits included consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits and the report of other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of other auditors, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the consolidated financial position of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. at December 31, 2011, and the consolidated results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the two years in the period ended December 31, 2011, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.

RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(in thousands, except share amounts)

	December 31

	2012			2011
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents ($3,320 and $2,922 related to VIEs)	$	15,410		$	10,177
Accounts receivable, net ($10,155 and $17,934 related to VIEs)		86,869			87,094
Prepaid expenses ($473 and $414 related to VIEs)		6,043			5,731
Inventories ($411 and $168 related to VIEs)		3,897			4,308
Deferred income taxes		540			2,969
Other ($6 and $756 related to VIEs)		7,429			6,025

Total current assets		120,188			116,304
Equity investments in joint ventures		575			692
Property and equipment, net ($20,271 and $22,910 related to VIEs)		221,050			236,411
Real estate subject to finance obligation		16,204			13,719
Goodwill ($18,929 and $18,879 related to VIEs)		485,859			556,547
Intangible assets, net ($1,296 and $1,363 related to VIEs)		35,044			42,393
Other assets ($8,050 and $8,106 related to VIEs)		43,381			32,526

Total assets	$	922,301		$	998,592

Liabilities and Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable ($2,381 and $2,282 related to VIEs)	$	27,538		$	27,748
Accrued expenses ($3,622 and $2,471 related to VIEs)		46,401			42,596
Income taxes payable ($95 and $31 related to VIEs)		2,951			5,310
Current portion of long-term debt		11,065			13,945
Current portion of finance obligation		287			161
Other current liabilities		7,684			6,615

Total current liabilities		95,926			96,375
Long-term debt, less current portion		751,303			665,088
Finance obligation, less current portion		16,905			14,105
Other long-term liabilities ($2,233 and $1,874 related to VIEs)		22,130			22,659
Deferred income taxes		6,202			10,343

Total liabilities		892,466			808,570
Noncontrolling interests—redeemable		11,368			12,728
Commitments and contingencies
Equity:
Common stock, $0.01 par value, 1,025 shares authorized, issued, and outstanding at December 31, 2012 and 2011		—			—
Additional paid-in capital		651,907			648,703
Retained deficit		(638,023	)		(483,815	)
Note receivable from shareholder		—			(125	)
Accumulated other comprehensive loss, net of tax		(11,464	)		(4,890	)

Total Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder's equity		2,420			159,873
Noncontrolling interests—nonredeemable		16,047			17,421

Total equity		18,467			177,294

Total liabilities and equity	$	922,301		$	998,592

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE LOSS

	Year Ended December 31,

(in thousands):	2012			2011			2010
Revenues:
Net patient service revenue	$	686,216		$	638,690		$	535,913
Other revenue		7,735			6,027			8,050

Total revenues		693,951			644,717			543,963
Expenses:
Salaries and benefits		372,656			326,782			282,302
Medical supplies		61,589			51,838			43,027
Facility rent expenses		39,802			33,375			27,885
Other operating expenses		38,988			33,992			27,103
General and administrative expenses		82,236			81,688			65,798
Depreciation and amortization		64,893			54,084			46,346
Provision for doubtful accounts		16,916			16,117			8,831
Interest expense, net		77,494			60,656			58,505
Electronic health records incentive income		(2,256	)		—			—
Loss on sale of assets of a radiation treatment center		—			—			1,903
Early extinguishment of debt		4,473			—			10,947
Fair value adjustment of earn-out liability and noncontrolling interests-redeemable		1,219			—			—
Impairment loss		81,021			360,639			97,916
Loss on investments		—			250			—
Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment		—			(234	)		—
Loss on foreign currency transactions		339			106			—
Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts		1,165			672			—

Total expenses		840,535			1,019,965			670,563

Loss before income taxes		(146,584	)		(375,248	)		(126,600	)
Income tax expense (benefit)		4,545			(25,365	)		(12,810	)

Net loss		(151,129	)		(349,883	)		(113,790	)
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests—redeemable and non-redeemable		(3,079	)		(3,558	)		(1,698	)

Net loss attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder		(154,208	)		(353,441	)		(115,488	)
Other comprehensive income (loss):
Unrealized (loss) gain on derivative interest rate swap agreements, net of tax		(333	)		2,428			1,679
Unrealized loss on foreign currency translation		(7,882	)		(4,909	)		—
Unrealized loss on other comprehensive income from share of equity investee		—			—			(201	)

Other comprehensive (loss) income:		(8,215	)		(2,481	)		1,478

Comprehensive loss		(159,344	)		(352,364	)		(112,312	)

Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests-redeemable and non-redeemable		(2,396	)		(2,914	)		(1,698	)

Comprehensive loss attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder	$	(161,740	)	$	(355,278	)	$	(114,010	)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC.

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

	Year Ended December 31,

(in thousands):	2012			2011			2010
Cash flows from operating activities
Net loss	$	(151,129	)	$	(349,883	)	$	(113,790	)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation		53,052			45,972			39,011
Amortization		11,841			8,112			7,335
Deferred rent expense		1,234			1,271			1,180
Deferred income taxes		(2,023	)		(28,378	)		(19,698	)
Stock-based compensation		3,257			1,461			1,030
Provision for doubtful accounts		16,916			16,117			8,831
Loss on the sale/disposal of property and equipment		748			235			734
Loss on the sale of assets of a radiation treatment center		—			—			1,903
Amortization of termination of interest rate swap		958			—			—
Write-off of pro-rata debt discount		—			—			494
Write-off of loan costs		525			—			1,593
Extinguishment of debt		4,473			—			10,947
Termination of a derivative interest rate swap agreement		(972	)		(1,880	)		—
Loss on fair value adjustment of noncontrolling interests-redeemable		175			—			—
Impairment loss		81,021			360,639			97,916
Loss on investments		—			250			—
Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment		—			(234	)		—
Loss on foreign currency transactions		33			98			—
Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts		1,165			672			—
Amortization of debt discount		798			847			791
Amortization of loan costs		5,434			4,524			3,350
Equity interest in net loss (earnings) of joint venture		817			1,036			(1,001	)
Distribution received from unconsolidated joint ventures		9			52			980
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable and other current assets		(21,578	)		(20,780	)		(16,066	)
Income taxes payable		(2,121	)		(4,393	)		6,477
Inventories		639			(1,622	)		107
Prepaid expenses		3,262			2,839			4,425
Accounts payable and other current liabilities		(1	)		2,808			8,454
Accrued deferred compensation		1,339			—			—
Accrued expenses / other current liabilities		6,258			5,001			3,991

Net cash provided by operating activities		16,130			44,764			48,994
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchases of property and equipment		(30,676	)		(36,612	)		(43,781	)
Acquisition of medical practices		(25,862	)		(59,886	)		(43,388	)
Purchase of joint venture interests		(1,364	)		—			(1,000	)
Proceeds from sale of property and equipment		2,987			6			1,693
(Loans to) repayments from employees		(68	)		338			457
Contribution of capital to joint venture entities		(714	)		(799	)		(3,711	)
Distribution received from joint venture		—			581			27
Proceeds from the sale of equity interest in a joint venture		—			312			—
Payments of foreign currency derivative contracts		(670	)		(1,486	)		—
Proceeds from sale of investments		—			1,035			—
Premiums on life insurance policies		(1,313	)		(79	)		—
Change in other assets and other liabilities		370			(192	)		(2,808	)

Net cash used in investing activities		(57,310	)		(96,782	)		(92,511	)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

	Year Ended December 31,

(in thousands):	2012			2011			2010
Cash flows from financing activities
Proceeds from issuance of debt (net of original issue discount of $1,656, $625 and $1,950 respectively)		448,163			111,205			316,550
Principal repayments of debt		(383,344	)		(57,777	)		(271,295	)
Repayments of finance obligation		(109	)		(95	)		(302	)
Payment of call premium on senior subordinated notes		—			—			(5,250	)
Proceeds from equity contribution		—			3			156
Payments of notes receivable from shareholder		72			50			50
Proceeds from issuance of noncontrolling interest		—			4,120			608
Cash distributions to noncontrolling interest holders—redeemable and non-redeemable		(3,920	)		(4,428	)		(3,176	)
Deconsolidation of noncontrolling interest		—			(33	)		(14	)
Payments of loan costs		(14,437	)		(4,809	)		(12,791	)

Net cash provided by financing activities		46,425			48,236			24,536
Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents		(12	)		(18	)		—
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents	$	5,233		$	(3,800	)	$	(18,981	)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		10,177			13,977			32,958

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	15,410		$	10,177		$	13,977

Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information
Interest paid	$	63,632		$	56,748		$	57,688

Income taxes paid	$	9,120		$	5,802		$	411

Supplemental disclosure of noncash transactions
Recorded finance obligation related to real estate projects	$	3,035		$	11,623		$	3,756

Recorded derecognition of finance obligation related to real estate projects	$	—		$	(5,829	)	$	(72,117	)

Recorded noncash deconsolidation of noncontrolling interest	$	—		$	49		$	(64	)

Recorded capital lease obligations related to the purchase of equipment	$	7,281		$	4,701		$	—

Recorded issuance of Parent equity units related to the acquisition of medical practices	$	—		$	16,250		$	—

Recorded issuance of senior subordinated notes related to the acquisition of medical practices	$	—		$	16,047		$	—

Recorded earn-out accrual related to the acquisition of medical practices	$	400		$	2,340		$	—

Recorded additional consideration related to the acquisition of medical practices	$	—		$	561		$	—

Recorded other non-current liabilities related to non-controlling interest related to the acquisition of medical practices	$	—		$	1,364		$	—

Recorded issuance of notes payable related to the acquisition of medical practices	$	—		$	4,005		$	—

Recorded noncash dividend declared to noncontrolling interest	$	167		$	221		$	—

Recorded issuance of redeemable noncontrolling interest	$	—		$	71		$	—

Recorded property and equipment related to the North Broward Hospital District license agreement	$	4,260		$	—		$	—

Recorded capital lease obligations related to the acquisition of medical practices	$	5,746		$	—		$	—

Recorded non-cash redemption of Parent equity units	$	53		$	—		$	—

Recorded noncash purchase of noncontrolling interest in a joint venture	$	—		$	—		$	(475	)

Recorded noncash contribution of capital by controlling interest holder	$	—		$	—		$	602

Recorded noncash use of vendor credits	$	—		$	—		$	2,027

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

	Common Stock										Note Receivable from Shareholder			Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss

	Common Stock				Additional Paid-In Capital			Retained Deficit									Noncontrolling interests— Nonredeemable			Total Equity
(in thousands except share amounts):	Shares		Amount		Additional Paid-In Capital			Retained Deficit									Noncontrolling interests— Nonredeemable			Total Equity
Balance, January 1, 2010		1,000	$	—	$	630,278		$	(14,886	)	$	(225	)	$	(4,869	)	$	11,709		$	622,007
Net (loss) income		—		—		—			(115,488	)		—			—			691			(114,797	)
Unrealized gain on interest rate swap agreement, net of tax		—		—		—			—			—			1,679			—			1,679
Share of equity investee's other comprehensive loss, net of tax		—		—		—			—			—			(201	)		—			(201	)
Issuance of limited liability company interests		—		—		156			—			—			—			—			156
Deconsolidation of a noncontrolling interest		—		—		—			—			—			—			(78	)		(78	)
Purchase of a noncontrolling interest in a joint venture		—		—		(475	)		—			—			—			475			—
Stock-based compensation		—		—		1,030			—			—			—			—			1,030
Payment of note receivable from shareholder		—		—		—			—			50			—			—			50
Equity contribution in joint venture		—		—		—			—			—			—			608			608
Cash distributions		—		—		—			—			—			—			(2,246	)		(2,246	)

Balance, December 31, 2010		1,000	$	—	$	630,989		$	(130,374	)	$	(175	)	$	(3,391	)	$	11,159		$	508,208

Net (loss) income		—		—		—			(353,441	)		—			—			2,767			(350,674	)
Unrealized gain on interest rate swap agreement, net of tax		—		—		—			—			—			2,428			—			2,428
Foreign currency translation loss		—		—		—			—			—			(4,265	)		(617	)		(4,882	)
Cash contribution of equity		—		—		3			—			—			—			—			3
Deconsolidation of a noncontrolling interest		—		—		—			—			—			—			49			49
Equity issuance related to MDLLC acquisition		25		—		16,250			—			—			—			—			16,250
Fair value of noncontrolling interest acquired in connection with MDLLC acquisition		—		—		—			—			—			—			7,750			7,750
Reversal of other comprehensive income of previously held equity investment		—		—		—			—			—			338			—			338
Stock-based compensation		—		—		1,461			—			—			—			—			1,461
Payment of note receivable from shareholder		—		—		—			—			50			—			—			50
Cash distributions		—		—		—			—			—			—			(3,687	)		(3,687	)

Balance, December 31, 2011		1,025	$	—	$	648,703		$	(483,815	)	$	(125	)	$	(4,890	)	$	17,421		$	177,294

Net (loss) income		—		—		—			(154,208	)		—			—			2,470			(151,738	)
Unrealized loss on interest rate swap agreement, net of tax		—		—		—			—			—			(333	)		—			(333	)
Foreign currency translation loss		—		—		—			—			—			(7,199	)		(498	)		(7,697	)
Amortization of other comprehensive income for termination of interest rate swap agreement, net of tax		—		—		—			—			—			958			—			958
Consolidation of a noncontrolling interest		—		—		—			—			—			—			146			146
Redemption of Parent equity units		—		—		(53	)		—			53			—			—			—
Stock-based compensation		—		—		3,257			—			—			—			—			3,257
Payment of note receivable from shareholder		—		—		—			—			72			—			—			72
Cash distributions		—		—		—			—			—			—			(3,492	)		(3,492	)

Balance, December 31, 2012		1,025	$	—	$	651,907		$	(638,023	)	$	—		$	(11,464	)	$	16,047		$	18,467

The accompanying notes are an integral part of the consolidated financial statements.

RADIATION THERAPY SERVICES HOLDINGS, INC.

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

DECEMBER 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010

Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. ("Parent"), through its wholly-owned subsidiaries (the "Subsidiaries" and, collectively with the Subsidiaries, the "Company") develops and operates radiation therapy centers that provide radiation treatment to cancer patients in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Carolina and West Virginia. The Company also develops and operates radiation therapy centers in Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean. The international centers are located in Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, and El Salvador. The Company also has affiliations with physicians specializing in other areas including urology and medical, gynecological, and surgical oncology in a number of markets to strengthen the Company's clinical working relationships and to evolve from a freestanding radiation oncology centric model to an Integrated Cancer Care ("ICC") model.

The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and all subsidiaries and entities controlled by the Company through the Company's direct or indirect ownership of a majority interest and/or exclusive rights granted to the Company as the general partner of such entities. All significant intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

The Company has evaluated certain radiation oncology practices in order to determine if they are variable interest entities ("VIEs"). This evaluation resulted in the Company determining that certain of its radiation oncology practices were potential VIEs. For each of these practices, the Company has evaluated (1) the sufficiency of the fair value of the entity's equity investments at risk to absorb losses, (2) that, as a group, the holders of the equity investments at risk have (a) the direct or indirect ability through voting rights to make decisions about the entity's significant activities, (b) the obligation to absorb the expected losses of the entity and that their obligations are not protected directly or indirectly, and (c) the right to receive the expected residual return of the entity, and (3) substantially all of the entity's activities do not involve or are not conducted on behalf of an investor that has disproportionately fewer voting rights in terms of its obligation to absorb the expected losses or its right to receive expected residual returns of the entity, or both. The Accounting Standards Codification (ASC), 810, Consolidation (ASC 810), requires a company to consolidate VIEs if the company is the primary beneficiary of the activities of those entities. Certain of the Company's radiation oncology practices are VIEs and the Company has a variable interest in each of these practices through its administrative services agreements. Other of the Company's radiation oncology practices (primarily consisting of partnerships) are VIEs and the Company has a variable interest in each of these practices because the total equity investment at risk is not sufficient to permit the legal entity to finance its activities without the additional subordinated financial support provided by its members.

In accordance with ASC 810, the Company consolidates certain radiation oncology practices where the Company provides administrative services pursuant to long-term management agreements. The

noncontrolling interests in these entities represent the interests of the physician owners of the oncology practices in the equity and results of operations of these consolidated entities. The Company, through its variable interests in these practices, has the power to direct the activities of these practices that most significantly impact the entity's economic performance and the Company would absorb a majority of the expected losses of these practices should they occur. Based on these determinations, the Company has consolidated these radiation oncology practices in its consolidated financial statements for all periods presented.

The Company could be obligated, under the terms of the operating agreements governing certain of its joint ventures, upon the occurrence of various fundamental regulatory changes and or upon the occurrence of certain events outside of the Company's control to purchase some or all of the noncontrolling interests related to the Company's consolidated subsidiaries. These repurchase requirements would be triggered by, among other things, regulatory changes prohibiting the existing ownership structure. While the Company is not aware of events that would make the occurrence of such a change probable, regulatory changes are outside the control of the Company. Accordingly, the noncontrolling interests subject to these repurchase provisions have been classified outside of equity on the Company's consolidated balance sheets.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the combined total assets included in the Company's balance sheet relating to the VIEs were approximately $62.9 and $73.5 million, respectively.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company was the primary beneficiary of, and therefore consolidated, 24 VIEs, which operate 41 and 44 centers, respectively. Any significant amounts of assets and liabilities related to the consolidated VIEs are identified parenthetically on the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The assets are owned by, and the liabilities are obligations of the VIEs, not the Company. Only the VIE's assets can be used to settle the liabilities of the VIE. The assets are used pursuant to operating agreements established by each VIE. The VIEs are not guarantors of the Company's debts. In the states of California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York and North Carolina, the Company's treatment centers are operated as physician office practices. The Company typically provides technical services to these treatment centers in addition to administrative services. For the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 approximately 19.4%, 18.0% and 22.1% of the Company's net patient service revenue, respectively, was generated by professional corporations with which it has administrative services agreements.

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company also held equity interests in five and seven VIEs, respectively, for which the Company is not the primary beneficiary. Those VIEs consist of partnerships that primarily provide radiation oncology services. The Company is not the primary beneficiary of these VIEs as it does not retain the power and rights in the operations of the entities. The Company's investments in the unconsolidated VIEs are approximately $0.6 million and $0.7 million at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, respectively, with ownership interests ranging between 28.5% and 45% general partner or equivalent interest. Accordingly, substantially all of these equity investment balances are attributed to the Company's noncontrolling interests in the unconsolidated partnerships. The Company's maximum risk of loss related to the investments in these VIEs is limited to the equity interest.

The Company has agreements with third-party payers that provide for payments to the Company at amounts different from its established rates. Net patient service revenue is reported at the estimated net realizable amounts due from patients, third-party payers and others for services rendered. Net patient service revenue is recognized as services are provided.

Medicare and other governmental programs reimburse physicians based on fee schedules, which are determined by the related government agency. The Company also has agreements with managed care organizations to provide physician services based on negotiated fee schedules. Accordingly, the revenues reported in the Company's consolidated financial statements are recorded at the amount that is expected to be received.

The Company derives a significant portion of its revenues from Medicare, Medicaid, and other payers that receive discounts from its standard charges. The Company must estimate the total amount of these discounts to prepare its consolidated financial statements. The Medicare and Medicaid regulations and various managed care contracts under which these discounts must be calculated are complex and subject to interpretation and adjustment. The Company estimates the allowance for contractual discounts on a payer class basis given its interpretation of the applicable regulations or contract terms. These interpretations sometimes result in payments that differ from the Company's estimates. Additionally, updated regulations and contract renegotiations occur frequently necessitating regular review and assessment of the estimation process by management.

On an annual basis the Company performs a hindsight analysis in reviewing estimates to its contractual adjustments and bad debt allowance. The Company's review of the estimates are based on a full year look-back of actual adjustments taken in the calculation of the contractual allowance and bad debt allowance. Adjustments to revenue related to changes in prior period estimates increased net patient service revenue by approximately $3.1 million and $1.8 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, or approximately 0.5% and 0.3%, respectively of the net patient service revenue and decreased net patient service revenue by approximately $0.4 million for year ended December 31, 2010 or approximately 0.1%, of the net patient service revenue for each of the respective periods.

For the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, approximately 45%, 48%, and 48%, respectively, of net patient service revenue related to services rendered under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. In the ordinary course of business, the Company is potentially subject to a review by regulatory agencies concerning the accuracy of billings and sufficiency of supporting documentation of procedures performed. Laws and regulations governing the Medicare and Medicaid programs are extremely complex and subject to interpretation. As a result, there is a possibility that such estimates will change by a significant amount in the near term.

Net patient service revenue is presented net of provisions for contractual adjustments. In the ordinary course of business, the Company provides services to patients who are financially unable to pay for their care. Accounts written off as charity and indigent care are not recognized in net patient service revenue. The Company's policy is to write off a patient's account balance upon determining that the patient qualifies under certain charity care and/or indigent care policies. The Company's policy includes the completion of an application for eligibility for charity care. The determination for charity

care eligibility is based on income relative to federal poverty guidelines, family size, and assets available to the patient. A sliding scale discount is then applied to the balance due with discounts up to 100%. The Company estimates the costs of charity care services it provides by developing a ratio of foregone charity care revenues compared to total revenues and applying that ratio to the costs of providing services. Costs of providing services includes select direct and indirect costs such as salaries and benefits, medical supplies, facility rent expenses, other operating expenses, general and administrative expenses, depreciation and amortization, provision for doubtful accounts, and interest expense. The Company's estimated cost to provide charity care services is approximately $16.5 million, $13.1 million, and $10.7 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively. Funds received to offset or subsidize charity services provided were approximately $0.4 million, $0.7 million, and $1.0 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

The cost of revenues for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, are approximately $481.6 million, $419.8 million, and $364.4 million, respectively.

Accounts receivable in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets are reported net of estimated allowances for doubtful accounts and contractual adjustments. Accounts receivable are uncollateralized and primarily consist of amounts due from third-party payers and patients. To provide for accounts receivable that could become uncollectible in the future, the Company establishes an allowance for doubtful accounts to reduce the carrying value of such receivables to their estimated net realizable value. Approximately $18.4 million and $28.3 million of accounts receivable were due from the Medicare and Medicaid programs at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The credit risk for any other concentrations of receivables is limited due to the large number of insurance companies and other payers that provide payments for services. Management does not believe that there are other significant concentrations of accounts receivable from any particular payer that would subject the Company to any significant credit risk in the collection of its accounts receivable.

The allowance for doubtful accounts is based upon management's assessment of historical and expected net collections, business and economic conditions, trends in federal and state governmental health care coverage, and other collection indicators. The primary tool used in management's assessment is an annual, detailed review of historical collections and write-offs of accounts receivable. The results of the detailed review of historical collections and write-off experience, adjusted for changes in trends and conditions, are used to evaluate the allowance amount for the current period. Accounts receivable are written off after collection efforts have been followed in accordance with the Company's policies.

Adjustments to bad debt expense related to changes in prior period estimates decreased bad debt expense by approximately $0.1 million, for the year ended December 31, 2012, increased bad debt expense by approximately $1.1 million, for the year ended December 31, 2011 and decreased bad debt expense by approximately $4.5 million, for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company's policy is to evaluate indefinite-lived intangible assets and goodwill for possible impairment at least annually at October 1, or whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of such assets may not be recoverable. An intangible asset with an indefinite life (a major trade name) is evaluated for possible impairment by comparing the fair value of the asset with its carrying value. Fair value is estimated as the discounted value of future revenues arising from a trade name using a royalty rate that an independent party would pay for use of that trade name. An impairment charge is recorded if the trade name's carrying value exceeds its estimated fair value. Goodwill is evaluated for possible impairment by comparing the fair value of a reporting unit with its carrying value, including goodwill assigned to that reporting unit. Fair value of a reporting unit is estimated using a combination of income-based and market-based valuation methodologies. Under the income approach, forecasted cash flows of a reporting unit are discounted to a present value using a discount rate commensurate with the risks of those cash flows. Under the market approach, the fair value of a reporting unit is estimated based on the revenues and earnings multiples of a group of comparable public companies and from recent transactions involving comparable companies. An impairment charge is recorded if the carrying value of the goodwill exceeds its implied fair value.

Intangible assets consist of trade names (indefinite life and amortizable), noncompete agreements, hospital contracts and licenses. Indefinite life trade names are tested at least annually for impairment. Amortizable trade names are amortized over the life of the trade name of approximately 15 months. Noncompete agreements, hospital contracts and licenses are amortized over the life of the agreement (which typically ranges from 2 to 20 years) using the straight-line method. No intangible asset impairment loss was recognized for the year ended December 31, 2012. Intangible asset impairment loss was recognized for the year ended December 31, 2011 of approximately $58.2 million relating to

the Company's trade name and the Company's rebranding initiatives. No intangible asset impairment loss was recognized for the year ended December 31, 2010.

The Company recognizes all derivatives in the consolidated balance sheets at fair value. The accounting for changes in the fair value (i.e., gains or losses) of a derivative instrument depends on whether it has been designated and qualifies as part of a hedging relationship based on its effectiveness in hedging against the exposure. Derivatives that do not meet hedge accounting requirements must be adjusted to fair value through operating results. If the derivative meets hedge accounting requirements, depending on the nature of the hedge, changes in the fair value of derivatives are either offset against the change in fair value of assets, liabilities, or firm commitments through operating results or recognized in other comprehensive income (loss) until the hedged item is recognized in operating results. The ineffective portion of a derivative's change in fair value is immediately recognized in earnings.

The Company enters into interest rate swap agreements to reduce the impact of changes in interest rates on its floating rate senior secured credit facility. The interest rate swap agreements are contracts to exchange floating rate interest payments for fixed interest payments over the life of the agreements without the exchange of the underlying notional amounts. The notional amounts of interest rate swap agreements are used to measure interest to be paid or received and do not represent the amount of exposure to credit loss. The differential paid or received on interest rate swap agreements is recognized in interest expense in the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss. The related accrued payable is included in other long term liabilities at December 31, 2011.

On May 27, 2008, the Company entered into an interest rate swap agreement for its $407.0 million of floating rate senior debt governed by the Credit Agreement dated February 21, 2008 (senior secured credit facility). The Company designated this derivative financial instrument as a cash flow hedge (i.e., the interest rate swap agreement hedges the exposure to variability in expected future cash flows that is attributable to interest rate risk). The initial notional amount of the swap agreement was $290.6 million with amounts scaling down during various quarters throughout the term of the interest rate swap agreement to $116.0 million. The effect of this agreement is to fix the interest rate exposure to 3.67% plus a margin on $116.0 million of the Company's senior secured credit facility. The interest rate swap agreement was scheduled to expire on March 30, 2012. In December 2011, the Company terminated the interest rate swap agreement and paid approximately $1.9 million representing the fair value of the interest rate hedge at time of termination. No ineffectiveness was recorded as a result of the termination of the interest rate swap agreement. The amount of accumulated other comprehensive loss related to the terminated interest rate swap agreement of approximately $84,000, net of tax was amortized through interest expense through the original term of the interest rate swap agreement on March 30, 2012. At December 31, 2012 and 2011 no amount of the floating rate senior debt was subject to an interest rate swap.

In July 2011, the Company entered into two interest rate swap agreements whereby the Company fixed the interest rate on the notional amounts totaling approximately $116.0 million of the Company's

senior secured term credit facility, effective as of March 30, 2012. The rate and maturity of the interest rate swap agreements were 0.923% plus a margin, which was 475 basis points, and was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2013. In May 2012, the Company terminated the interest rate swap agreements and paid approximately $1.0 million representing the fair value of the interest rate hedges at time of termination. No ineffectiveness was recorded as a result of the termination of the interest rate swap agreement. The amount of accumulated other comprehensive loss related to the terminated interest rate swap agreements of approximately $1.0 million, net of tax, is reflected as interest expense in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

The swaps are derivatives and are accounted for under ASC 815, "Derivatives and Hedging" ("ASC 815"). The fair value of the swap agreements, representing the estimated amount that the Company would pay to a third party assuming the Company's obligations under the interest rate swap agreements terminated at December 31, 2012 and 2011, was approximately $-0- million and $0.7 million, respectively, which is included in other long term liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The estimated fair value of our interest rate swap was determined using the income approach that considers various inputs and assumptions, including LIBOR swap rates, cash flow activity, yield curves and other relevant economic measures, all of which are observable market inputs that are classified under Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value also incorporates valuation adjustments for credit risk. No ineffectiveness was recorded for the year ended December 31, 2012.

Since the Company has the ability to elect different interest rates on the debt at each reset date, and the senior secured credit facility contains certain prepayment provisions, the hedging relationships do not qualify for use of the shortcut method under ASC 815. Therefore, the effectiveness of the hedge relationship is assessed on a quarterly basis during the life of the hedge through regression analysis. The entire change in fair market value is recorded in equity, net of tax, as other comprehensive income (loss).

Foreign currency risk is the risk that fluctuations in foreign exchange rates could impact the Company's results from operations. The Company is exposed to a significant amount of foreign exchange risk, primarily between the U.S. dollar and the Argentine Peso. This exposure relates to the provision of radiation oncology services to patients at the Company's Latin American operations and purchases of goods and services in foreign currencies. The Company enters into foreign exchange option contracts to convert a significant portion of the Company's forecasted foreign currency denominated net income into U.S. dollars to limit the adverse impact of a potential weakening Argentine Peso against the U.S. dollar. On December 31, 2012 the Company entered into a foreign exchange option contract maturing on December 31, 2013 to replace the contract maturing on September 28, 2012. Because the Company's Argentine forecasted foreign currency denominated net income is expected to increase commensurate with inflationary expectations, any adverse impact on net income from a weakening Argentine Peso against the U.S. dollar is limited to the cost of the option contracts, which was approximately $0.7 million in aggregate at inception of the contracts. Under the Company's foreign currency management program, the Company expects to monitor foreign exchange rates and periodically enter into forward contracts and other derivative instruments. Currently, the

Company is targeting to cover approximately 70% of its forecasted Latin American operating income over the next twelve months through the use of forward contracts and other derivatives with the actual percentage determined by management based on the changing exchange rate environment. The Company does not use derivative financial instruments for speculative purposes.

These programs reduce, but do not entirely eliminate, the impact of currency exchange movements. The Company's current practice is to use currency derivatives without hedge accounting designation. The maturity of these instruments generally occurs within twelve months. Gains or losses resulting from the fair valuing of these instruments are reported in (gain) loss on forward currency derivative contracts on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. For the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011 the Company incurred a loss of approximately $1.2 million and $0.7 million relating to foreign currency derivative program. The fair value of the foreign currency derivative is recorded in other current assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the fair value of the foreign currency derivative was approximately $0.3 million and $0.8 million, respectively.

The following represents the current foreign currency derivative agreements as of December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

The Company is subject to claims and legal actions in the ordinary course of business, including claims relating to patient treatment, employment practices, and personal injuries. To cover these types of claims, the Company maintains general liability and professional liability insurance in excess of self-insured retentions through commercial insurance carriers in amounts that the Company believes to be sufficient for its operations, although, potentially, some claims may exceed the scope of coverage in effect. The Company expenses an estimate of the costs it expects to incur under the self-insured retention exposure for general and professional liability claims. The Company maintains insurance for the majority of its physicians up to $1 million on individual malpractice claims and $3 million on aggregate claims on a claims-made basis. The Company purchases medical malpractice insurance from an insurance company partially owned by a related party. The Company's reserves for professional and general liability claims are based upon independent actuarial calculations, which consider historical claims data, demographic considerations, severity factors, industry trends, and other actuarial assumptions.

Actuarial calculations include a large number of variables that may significantly impact the estimate of ultimate losses that are recorded during a reporting period. Professional judgment is used by the actuary in determining the loss estimate, by selecting factors that are considered appropriate by the actuary for the Company's specific circumstances. Changes in assumptions used by the Company's actuary with respect to demographics, industry trends, and judgmental selection of factors may impact the Company's recorded reserve levels.

The amount accrued for professional and general liability claims as of the consolidated balance sheet dates reflects the current estimates of all outstanding losses, including incurred but not reported losses, based upon actuarial calculations. The loss estimates included in the actuarial calculations may change in the future based upon updated facts and circumstances. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011 the amount accrued for incurred but not reported professional liability claims was $2.1 million and $1.7 million, respectively. In accordance with the adoption of ASU 2010-24, amounts accrued for reported claims as of December 31, 2012 total approximately $5.6 million. Of the approximate $5.6 million, approximately $2.8 million is recorded as other current liabilities and approximately $2.8 million is reported as other long-term liabilities. In addition the Company has recorded estimated insurance recoveries totaling approximately $5.6 million as of December 31, 2012. Of the approximate $5.6 million of estimated insurance recoveries, approximately $2.8 million is recorded as other current assets and approximately $2.8 million is reported as other long-term assets. Amounts accrued for reported claims as of December 31, 2011 total approximately $7.4 million. Of the approximate $7.4 million, approximately $3.1 million is recorded as other current liabilities and approximately $4.3 million is reported as other long-term liabilities. In addition the Company has recorded estimated insurance recoveries totaling approximately $7.4 million as of December 31, 2011. Of the approximate $7.4 million of estimated insurance recoveries, approximately $3.1 million is recorded as other current assets and approximately $4.3 million is reported as other long-term assets.

The Company currently maintains equity interests in 7 treatment center facilities with ownership interests ranging from 51.0% to 90.0%. Since the Company controls more than 50% of the voting interest in these facilities, the Company consolidates these treatment centers. The noncontrolling interests represent the equity interests of outside investors in the equity and results of operations of these consolidated entities.

In addition, in accordance with ASC 810, Consolidation, the Company consolidates certain radiation oncology practices where the Company provides administrative services pursuant to long-term management agreements. The noncontrolling interests in these entities represent the interests of the physician owners of the oncology practices in the equity and results of operations of these consolidated entities.

On January 1, 2009, the Company adopted changes issued by the Financial Accounting Standards Board ("FASB") to the accounting for noncontrolling interests in consolidated financial statements. These changes require, among other items, that a noncontrolling interest be included within equity separate from the parent's equity; consolidated net income be reported at amounts inclusive of both the parent's and noncontrolling interest's shares; and, separately, the amounts of consolidated net

income attributable to the parent and noncontrolling interest all be reported on the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss.

The Company could be obligated, under the terms of the operating agreements governing certain of its joint ventures, upon the occurrence of various fundamental regulatory changes and/or upon the occurrence of certain events outside of the Company's control to purchase some or all of the noncontrolling interests related to the Company's consolidated subsidiaries. These repurchase requirements would be triggered by, among other things, regulatory changes making the existing ownership structure illegal. While the Company is not aware of events that would make the occurrence of such a change probable, regulatory changes are outside the control of the Company. Accordingly, the noncontrolling interests subject to these repurchase provisions have been classified outside of equity on the Company's consolidated balance sheets.

The preparation of these consolidated financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities at the date of the consolidated financial statements. Estimates also affect the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Cash and cash equivalents include highly liquid investments with original maturities of three months or less when purchased.

Inventories consist of parts and supplies used for repairs and maintenance of equipment owned or leased by the Company and medical drugs used for patient care services as follows:

Inventories are valued at the lower of cost or market. The cost of parts and supplies and medical drugs are determined using the first-in, first-out method.

Property and equipment are recorded at historical cost less accumulated depreciation and are depreciated over their estimated useful lives utilizing the straight-line method. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the lesser of the estimated useful life of the improvement or the life of the lease. Amortization of leased assets is included in depreciation and amortization in the accompanying

consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. Expenditures for repairs and maintenance are charged to operating expense as incurred, while equipment replacement and betterments are capitalized.

The weighted-average useful life of medical and medical testing equipment is 9.3 years in 2012 and 2011.

The Company evaluates its long-lived assets for possible impairment whenever circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the asset, or related group of assets, may not be recoverable from estimated future cash flows, in accordance with ASC 360, Property, Plant, and Equipment. Fair value estimates are derived from independent appraisals, established market values of comparable assets, or internal calculations of estimated future net cash flows. The Company's estimates of future cash flows are based on assumptions and projections it believes to be reasonable and supportable for a market.

In May 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-04, Fair Value Measurement (Topic 820): Amendments to Achieve Common Fair Value Measurement and Disclosure Requirements in U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards, (ASU 2011-04), which amends the FASB Accounting Standards Codification to provide a consistent definition of fair value and ensure that the fair value measurement and disclosure requirements are similar between U.S. GAAP and International Financial Reporting Standards. ASU 2011-04 changes certain fair value measurement principles and enhances the disclosure requirements particularly for level 3 fair value measurements. ASU 2011-04 is applied prospectively. The amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim period within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company adopted ASU 2011-04 on January 1, 2012 which had no impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In July 2011, the FASB issued ASU 2011-07, Health Care Entities (Topic 954): Presentation and Disclosure of Patient Service Revenue, Provision for Bad Debts, and the Allowance for Doubtful Accounts for Certain Health Care Entities, (ASU 2011-07). ASU 2011-07 amends the FASB Accounting Standards Codification to require health care entities that recognize significant amounts of patient service revenue at the time services are rendered even though they do not assess the patient's ability to pay to present the provision for bad debts related to patient service revenue as a deduction from patient service revenue (net of contractual allowances and discounts) on their statement of operations. Additionally, those health care entities are required to provide enhanced disclosure about their policies for recognizing revenue and assessing bad debts. The amendments also require disclosures of patient service revenue (net of contractual allowances and discounts) as well as qualitative and quantitative information about changes in the allowance for doubtful accounts. ASU 2011-07 is applied retrospectively and disclosures relating to ASU 2011-07 are applied prospectively. The amendments are effective for fiscal years, and interim period within those years, beginning after December 15, 2011. The Company has evaluated ASU 2011-07 and determined that the requirements of this ASU are not applicable to the Company as the ultimate collection of patient service revenue is generally determinable at the time of service, and therefore, the ASU had no impact on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Advertising costs are charged to general and administrative expenses as incurred and amounted to approximately $3.4 million, $3.6 million and $2.0 million, for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, respectively.

Comprehensive loss consists of two components, net loss and other comprehensive income (loss). Other comprehensive income (loss) refers to revenue, expenses, gains, and losses that under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States are recorded as an element of equity but are excluded from net loss. The Company's other comprehensive income (loss) is composed of unrealized gains and losses on interest rate swap agreements accounted for as cash flow hedges and the Company's foreign currency translation of its operations in South America, Central America and the Caribbean. The impact of the unrealized net loss decreased total equity on a consolidated basis by approximately $8.2 million and $2.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively and the impact of unrealized net gain increased total equity on a consolidated basis by approximately $1.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss. The components of accumulated other comprehensive income (loss) were as follows (in thousands):

	Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. Shareholder

	Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. Shareholder												Noncontrolling Interests
				Derivative Losses on Interest Rate Swap Agreements									Noncontrolling Interests
(in thousands):	Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments			Derivative Losses on Interest Rate Swap Agreements			Other			Total			Foreign Currency Translation Adjustments			Other Comprehensive Income (Loss)
Year ended December 31, 2009	$	—		$	(4,732	)	$	(137	)	$	(4,869	)	$	—

Other Comprehensive income (loss)		—			2,730			(201	)		2,529			—		$	2,529
Income tax expense		—			(1,051	)		—			(1,051	)		—			(1,051	)

Year ended December 31, 2010		—			(3,053	)		(338	)		(3,391	)		—			1,478

Other Comprehensive (loss) income		(4,265	)		2,377			—			(1,888	)		(644	)		(2,532	)
Income tax benefit		—			51			—			51			—			51
Reversal of previously held equity investment		—			—			338			338			—			—

Year ended December 31, 2011		(4,265	)		(625	)		—			(4,890	)		(644	)		(2,481	)

Other Comprehensive (loss) income		(7,199	)		(333	)		—			(7,532	)		(683	)		(8,215	)
Amortization of other comprehensive income for termination of interest rate swap agreement, net of tax		—			958			—			958			—			—

Year ended December 31, 2012	$	(11,464	)	$	—		$	—		$	(11,464	)	$	(1,327	)	$	(8,215	)

The Company provides for federal, foreign and state income taxes currently payable, as well as for those deferred due to timing differences between reporting income and expenses for financial statement purposes versus tax purposes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are recognized for the future tax consequences attributable to temporary differences between the financial statement carrying amounts of existing assets and liabilities and their respective tax bases. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are measured using enacted income tax rates expected to apply to taxable income in the years in which those temporary differences are expected to be recovered or settled. The effect of a change in income tax rates is recognized as income or expense in the period that includes the enactment date.

ASC 740, Income Taxes (ASC 740), clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an entity's financial statements and prescribes a recognition threshold and measurement attributes for financial statement disclosure of tax positions taken or expected to be taken on a tax return. Under ASC 740, the impact of an uncertain tax position on the income tax return must be

recognized at the largest amount that is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon audit by the relevant taxing authority. An uncertain income tax position will not be recognized if it has less than a 50% likelihood of being sustained. Additionally, ASC 740, provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition.

Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC ("RT Investments"), the shareholder of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. adopted equity-based incentive plans in February 2008 and June 2012, and issued units of limited liability company interests designated Class B Units, Class C Units, Class MEP and Class EMEP Units pursuant to such plans. The Class B Units and Class C Units were modified and replaced under the June 2012 equity plan with the issuance of the Class MEP Units and Class EMEP Units. The units are limited liability company interests and are available for issuance to the Company's employees and members of the Board of Directors for incentive purposes. For purposes of determining the compensation expense associated with these grants, management valued the business enterprise using a variety of widely accepted valuation techniques, which considered a number of factors such as the financial performance of the Company, the values of comparable companies and the lack of marketability of the Company's equity at grant date. The Company then used the option pricing method to determine the fair value of these units at the time of grant using valuation assumptions consisting of the expected term in which the units will be realized; a risk-free interest rate equal to the U.S. federal treasury bond rate consistent with the term assumption; expected dividend yield, for which there is none; and expected volatility based on the historical data of equity instruments of comparable companies. The Company also uses the probability-weighted expected return method ("PWERM") to determine the fair value of certain units at the time of grant. Under the PWERM, the value of the units is estimated based upon an analysis of future values for the enterprise assuming various future outcomes (exits) as well as the rights of each unit class. In developing assumptions for the various exit scenarios, management considered the Company's ability to achieve certain growth and profitability milestone in order to maximize shareholder value at the time of potential exit. Generally, for Class MEP units awarded, 66.6% vest upon issuance, while the remaining 33.4% vest on the 18 month anniversary of the issuance date. There are no performance conditions for the MEP units to vest. For newly hired individuals after January 1, 2012, vesting occurs at 33.3% in years one and two, and 33.4% in year three of the individual's hire date. Vesting of the Class EMEP units is dependent upon achievement of an implied equity value target. The right to receive proceeds from vested units is dependent upon the occurrence of a qualified sale or liquidation event. The estimated fair value of the units, less an assumed forfeiture rate, are recognized in expense on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards for the Class MEP Units and the accelerated attribution method approach is utilized for the Class EMEP Units.

The carrying values of the Company's financial instruments, which include cash and cash equivalents, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate their fair values due to the short-term maturity of these instruments.

The carrying values of the Company's long-term debt approximates fair value due either to the length to maturity or the existence of interest rates that approximate prevailing market rates unless otherwise disclosed in these consolidated financial statements.

During 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company impaired certain leasehold improvements and other fixed assets of approximately $0.3 million, $0.8 million and $3.5 million, respectively for planned closings of certain offices in California, Maryland and Michigan.

The Company leases certain equipment under agreements, which are classified as capital leases. These leases have bargain purchase options at the end of the original lease terms. Capital leased assets included in property and equipment are as follows:

Amortization expense relating to capital leased equipment was approximately $3.8 million, $4.4 million, and $4.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, and is included in depreciation expense in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

On July 6, 2012, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), the government agency responsible for administering the Medicare program released its 2013 preliminary physician fee schedule. The preliminary physician fee schedule would have resulted in a 15% rate reduction on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers. CMS provided a 60 day comment period and the final rule was released on November 1, 2012. The final rule by CMS provided for a 7% rate reduction on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers effective January 1, 2013. The Company completed an interim impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets based on the Company's estimate of the proposed CMS cuts at September 30, 2012. In performing this test, the Company assessed the implied fair value of its goodwill. It was determined that the implied fair value of goodwill was less than the carrying amount, and as a result the Company recorded an impairment charge for the quarter ended September 30, 2012. The implied fair value of goodwill was determined in the same manner as the amount of goodwill that would be recognized in a hypothetical business combination. The estimated fair value of the reporting unit was allocated to all of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit (including the unrecognized intangible assets) as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination and the estimated fair value of the reporting unit was the purchase price paid. Based on (i) assessment of current and expected future economic conditions, (ii) trends, strategies and forecasted cash flows at each reporting unit and (iii) assumptions similar to those that market participants would make in valuing the Company's reporting units, the Company's management determined that the carrying value of goodwill in certain U.S. Domestic markets, including Mid East United States (Northwest Florida, North Carolina, Southeast Alabama, South Carolina), Central South East United States (Delmarva Peninsula, Central Maryland, Central Kentucky, South New Jersey), California, South West United States (central Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada), and Southwest Florida regions exceeded their fair value. Accordingly, the Company recorded noncash impairment charges in the U.S. Domestic reporting segment totaling $69.8 million in the consolidated statement of comprehensive loss during the quarter ended September 30, 2012. In addition, during the third quarter of 2012, an impairment loss of approximately

$0.1 million, reported in impairment loss on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements of a planned radiation treatment facility office closing in Monroe, Michigan in the Northeast U.S. region.

Impairment charges relating to goodwill during the third quarter of 2012 are summarized as follows:

During the fourth quarter of 2012, the Company completed its annual impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets. In performing this test, the Company assessed the implied fair value of our goodwill and intangible assets. As a result, the Company recorded an impairment loss of approximately $11.1 million during the fourth quarter of 2012 primarily relating to goodwill impairment in certain of our reporting units, including Central South East United States (Delmarva Peninsula, Central Maryland, Central Kentucky, South New Jersey), and Southwest Florida of approximately $10.8 million. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2012, an impairment loss of approximately $0.1 million was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements in the Delmarva Peninsula local market and approximately $0.2 million related to a consolidated joint venture in the Central Maryland local market.

Impairment charges relating to goodwill during the fourth quarter of 2012 are summarized as follows:

During the second quarter of 2011, certain of the Company's regions' patient volume had stabilized in their respective markets. Although the Company had a stabilization of patient volume, the Company was reviewing its anticipated growth expectations in certain of the reporting units and was considering whether it was necessary to adjust expectations for the remainder of the year. During the third quarter of 2011, Company determined that its previously projected cash flows for certain of its reporting units were not likely to be achieved and as a result revised these estimated cash flows and obtained a valuation analysis and appraisal to enable the Company to determine if all or a portion of the recorded goodwill or any portion of other long-lived assets were impaired. The reporting units affected were affected by the deterioration in the housing market and the continued high unemployment rates, as well as the local economic conditions in the communities the Company serves.

the final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2012 and 2013 by CMS on November 1, 2011, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers. In performing this test, the Company assessed the implied fair value of its goodwill and intangible assets. It was determined that the implied fair value of goodwill and/or indefinite-lived intangible assets was less than the carrying amount, and as a result the Company recorded an impairment charge. The implied fair value of goodwill was determined in the same manner as the amount of goodwill recognized in a business combination. The estimated fair value of the reporting unit was allocated to all of the assets and liabilities of the reporting unit (including the unrecognized intangible assets) as if the reporting unit had been acquired in a business combination and the estimated fair value of the reporting unit was the purchase price paid. Based on (i) assessment of current and expected future economic conditions, (ii) trends, strategies and forecasted cash flows at each reporting unit and (iii) assumptions similar to those that market participants would make in valuing the Company's reporting units, the Company's management determined that the carrying value of goodwill and trade name in certain U.S. Domestic markets, including North East United States (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), California, South West United States (central Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada), the Florida east coast, Northwest Florida and Southwest Florida regions exceeded their fair value. Accordingly, the Company recorded noncash impairment charges in the U.S. Domestic reporting segment totaling $234.9 million in the consolidated statement of comprehensive loss during the third quarter of 2011.

Impairment charges relating to goodwill and trade name during the third quarter of 2011 are summarized as follows:

Impairment charges relating to goodwill and trade name during the fourth quarter of 2011 are summarized as follows:

The estimated fair value measurements for all periods presented were developed using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). For goodwill, the primary valuation technique used was an income methodology based on management's estimates of forecasted cash flows for each reporting unit, with those cash flows discounted to present value using rates commensurate with the risks of those cash flows. In addition, management used a market-based valuation method involving analysis of market multiples of revenues and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for (i) a group of comparable public companies and (ii) recent transactions, if any, involving comparable companies. For trade name intangible assets, management used the income-based relief-from-royalty valuation method in which fair value is the discounted value of forecasted royalty revenues arising from a trade name using a royalty rate that an independent party would pay for use of that trade name. Assumptions used by management were similar to those that management believes would be used by market participants performing valuations of these regional divisions. Management's assumptions were based on analysis of current and expected future economic conditions and the strategic plan for each reporting unit.

In addition to the goodwill and trade name impairment losses noted above, an impairment loss of approximately $2.7 million, reported in impairment loss on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, was recognized during the third quarter of 2011 related to the Company's write-off of its 45% investment interest in a radio-surgery center in Rhode Island in the North East U.S. region due to continued operating losses since its inception in 2008. The estimated fair value measurements were developed using significant unobservable inputs (Level 3), including continued operating losses, declining operating cash flow and the limited use of the CyberKnife technology in treating cancer patients. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2011, an impairment loss of approximately $0.8 million, reported in impairment loss on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements of a planned radiation treatment facility office closing in Baltimore, Maryland in the Central South East U.S. region and $0.7 million impairment on certain deposits on equipment.

The Company implemented the qualitative screen test approach in assessing goodwill impairment for its international region. The qualitative analysis was limited to the international region due to its recent expansion into a new divisional region as a result of the Company's acquisition of MDLLC on March 1, 2011. Factors that contributed to the qualitative screen test included the macroeconomic conditions in Latin America remained strong in 2011 and its growth exceeding the growth estimates of the U.S. economy. Other factors included continued migration toward more clinically sophisticated radiation oncology services which have higher reimbursement rates, and the implementation of operational enhancements from equipment upgrades which enable the Company to increase the

number of patients treated and improve the clinical quality of the service. Operational improvements, improvements in treatment mix, as well as new capacity coming on line from the Company's acquisition of five additional radiation treatment centers in Argentina in November 2011 are expected to produce continued growth in the international region. As the international region's current and projected results exceed original forecasts, the Company's view that it is more likely than not that the value of the international reporting unit is equal to or in excess of its carrying amount and therefore a further quantitative step 1 goodwill impairment analysis was not necessary.

The Company completed its annual impairment testing for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets on October 1, 2010. Based on (i) assessment of current and expected future economic conditions, (ii) trends, strategies and forecasted cash flows at each reporting unit and (iii) assumptions similar to those that market participants would make in valuing the Company's reporting units, the Company's management determined that the carrying value of goodwill in certain markets, including California, South West United States (central Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada) and the Florida east coast regions exceeded their fair value. Accordingly, the Company recorded noncash impairment charges totaling $91.2 million in the consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the Company's October 1 annual goodwill impairment testing, the Company evaluated the economic performance of certain of its California offices. The Company concluded that it is unlikely these offices would remain operational beyond 2011. Pursuant to ASC 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other, the Company recorded an additional $2.5 million noncash impairment charge based on the relative fair value of these offices as compared to the fair value of the portion of the California reporting unit to be retained. Impairment charges relating to goodwill are summarized as follows:

Amortization expense relating to intangible assets was approximately $11.8 million, $8.1 million, $7.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. The weighted-average amortization period is approximately 10 years.

In January 2009, the Company purchased from family members of a related party (i) a 33% interest in a joint venture that held a majority equity interest in and managed 26 radiation therapy treatment centers in South America, Central America and the Caribbean and (ii) a 19% interest in a joint venture, which operates a treatment center in Guatemala, for approximately $10.4 million, subject to final determination of the purchase price based on a multiple of historical earnings before interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization. In January 2010, the Company finalized the amount due for its 33% interest in the joint venture and paid an additional $1.9 million. The transaction had been accounted for under the equity method.

In 2010, the Company held a 33% interest in Medical Developers and on March 1, 2011, the Company purchased the remaining 67% interest in Medical Developers, LLC ("MDLLC") from Bernardo Dosoretz as well as interests in the subsidiaries of MDLLC from Alejandro Dosoretz and Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of approximately 91% in the underlying radiation oncology practices located in South America, Central America and the Caribbean. The Company also purchased an additional 61% interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A. from Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of 80%. The acquisition of the remaining interests expands the Company's presence into a new regional division. The Company consummated these acquisitions for a combined purchase price of approximately $82.7 million, comprised of $47.5 million in cash, 25 common units of Parent immediately exchanged for 13,660 units of RT Investments' non-voting preferred equity units and 258,955 units of RT Investments' class A equity units totaling approximately $16.25 million, and issuance of a 9⁷/8% note payable, due 2017 totaling approximately $16.05 million to the seller, an estimated contingent earn out payment totaling $2.3 million, and issuance of real estate located in Costa Rica totaling $0.6 million. The earn out payment is contingent upon certain acquired centers attaining earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization targets, is due 18 months subsequent to the transaction closing, and is payable through Company financing and issuance of equity units. The Company utilized the income and market approaches as well as the option pricing allocation methodology to value the equity units issued as consideration. At September 30, 2012, the Company calculated the contingent earn out payment and increased the amount due to the seller to approximately $3.6 million. The Company recorded the adjustment of $1.3 million to the earn-out payment as an expense in the fair value adjustment of the earn-out liability in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

The following table summarizes the allocation of the aggregate purchase price of MDLLC, including assumed liabilities (in thousands):


Fair value of net assets acquired:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	5,396
Accounts receivable, net		18,892
Prepaid expenses		268
Deferred tax assets		1,465
Other noncurrent assets		85
Property and equipment		8,479
Intangible assets		23,600
Accounts payable		(3,121	)
Accrued expenses		(2,064	)
Current portion of long-term debt		(422	)
Income taxes payable		(3,048	)
Other current liabilities		(580	)
Long-term debt, less current portion		(686	)
Deferred income taxes		(6,720	)
Previously held equity interest		(16,150	)
Other long-term liabilities		(2,117	)
Noncontrolling interests—nonredeemable		(7,750	)

Net identifiable assets acquired	$	15,527

The Company recorded the acquisition at its fair value upon gaining a controlling interest in MDLLC at March 1, 2011. The Company's previously held equity interest in the acquired entities as of the acquisition date totaled approximately $16.15 million. For purposes of valuing the previously held equity interest, the Company used the discounted cash flow method, a derivation of the income approach, which considered a number of factors such as the MDLLC's performance projections, MDLLC's cost of capital, and consideration ascribed to applicable discounts for lack of control and marketability. The Company recorded a gain on the previously held equity interest totaling approximately $0.2 million identified as gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

The Company acquired noncontrolling interests totaling approximately $7.75 million as of the acquisition date. The Company valued the noncontrolling interests using the discounted cash flow method, a derivation of the income approach, which considered a number of factors such as the MDLLC's performance projections, MDLLC's cost of capital, and consideration ascribed to applicable discounts for lack of control and marketability. The Company acquired a number of hospital contract arrangements that have varying expiration dates through February 1, 2020. The weighted-average period prior to the next renewal period was 4.9 years as of the acquisition date.

The Company valued the trade name using the relief from royalty method, a derivation of the income approach that estimates the benefit of owning the trade name rather than paying royalties for the right to use a comparable asset. The Company considered a number of factors to value the trade name, including MDLLC's performance projections, royalty rates, discount rates, strength of competition, and income tax rates.

The Company valued the non-compete agreement using the discounted cash flow method, a derivation of the income approach that evaluates the difference in the sum of MDLLC's present value of cash flows of two scenarios: (1) with the non-compete in place and (2) without the non-compete in place. The Company considered various factors in determining the non-compete value including MDLLC's performance projections, probability of competition, income tax rates, and discount rates.

The Company valued the hospital contract arrangements using the excess earnings method, which is a form of the income approach. This method includes projecting MDLLC's revenues and expenses attributable to the existing hospital contract arrangements, and then subtracts the required return on MDLLC's net tangible assets and any intangible assets used in the business in order to determine any residual excess earnings attributable to the hospital contract arrangements. The after tax excess earnings are then discounted to present value using an appropriate risk adjusted rate of return.

The weighted-average amortization period for the acquired amortizable intangible assets at the time of the acquisition was approximately 18.1 years. Total amortization expense recognized for these acquired amortizable intangible assets totaled approximately $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2011.

Estimated future amortization expense for MDLLC's acquired amortizable intangible assets as of December 31, 2012 is as follows (in thousands):

The excess of the purchase price over the fair value of the net assets acquired was allocated to goodwill of $67.2 million, representing primarily the value of estimated cost savings and synergies expected from the transaction. The goodwill is not deductible for tax purposes and is included in the Company's international geographic segment.

Cash at December 31, 2012 and 2011 held by the Company's foreign operating subsidiaries was $4.6 million and $5.2 million, respectively. The Company considers these cash amounts to be permanently invested in the Company's foreign operating subsidiaries and therefore does not anticipate repatriating any excess cash flows to the U.S. The Company anticipates it can adequately fund its domestic operations from cash flows generated solely from the U.S. business. Of the $4.6 million of cash held by the Company's foreign operating subsidiaries at December 31, 2012, $0.4 million is held in U.S. Dollars, $0.4 million of which is held at banks in the United States, with the remaining held in foreign currencies in foreign banks. The Company believes that the magnitude of its growth opportunities outside of the U.S. will cause the Company to continuously reinvest foreign earnings. The Company does not require access to the earnings and cash flow of its international subsidiaries to fund its U.S. operations.

On August 29, 2011, the Company acquired the assets of a radiation treatment center and other physician practices located in Redding, California, for approximately $9.6 million. The acquisition of the Redding facility further expands the Company's presence into the Northern California market. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $3.3 million, intangible assets including $0.3 million trade name and non-compete agreements of $0.3 million, amortized over 5 years, and goodwill of $5.7 million, which is deductible for tax purposes.

In September 2011, the Company entered into a professional services agreement with a hospital district in Broward County, Florida to provide professional services at two radiation oncology sites within the hospital district. In March 2012, the Company entered into a license agreement with the North Broward Hospital District to license the space and equipment and assume responsibility for the operation of the two radiation therapy departments at Broward General Medical Center and North Broward Medical Center, as part of the Company's value added services offering. The license agreement runs for an initial term of ten years, with three separate five year renewal options. The Company recorded approximately $4.3 million of tangible assets relating to the use of the medical equipment pursuant to the license agreement.

On November 4, 2011, the Company purchased an 80% interest in an operating entity, which operates 1 radiation treatment center in Argentina; an 80% interest in another operating entity, which operates 3 radiation treatment centers in Argentina; and a 96% interest in an operating entity, which operates 1 radiation treatment center in Argentina. The combined purchase price of the ownership interests totals approximately $7.4 million, comprised of $2.1 million in cash, seller financing totaling approximately $4.0 million payable over 24 monthly installments, commencing January 2012, and a purchase option totaling approximately $1.3 million. The acquisition of these operating treatment centers expands the Company's presence in its international markets. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $3.7 million (including cash of $0.6 million), intangible assets including $0.2 million trade name and non-compete agreements of $0.2 million, amortized over 5 years, goodwill of $8.1 million, which is deductible for U.S. tax purposes but non-deductible for foreign tax purposes, liabilities of $3.4 million, and noncontrolling interests redeemable of $1.4 million. In November 2012, the Company exercised its purchase option to purchase the remaining interest for approximately $1.4 million and recorded the adjustment of $0.2 million to the purchase option as an expense in the fair value adjustment of the noncontrolling interests-redeemable in the consolidated statements of

comprehensive loss. The Company finalized its purchase price adjustment with the exercise of it purchase option with a reduction in noncontrolling interest-redeemable and goodwill of $1.4 million.

On December 22, 2011, the Company acquired the interest in an operating entity which operates two radiation treatment centers located in North Carolina, for approximately $6.3 million. On April 16, 2012 the Company acquired certain additional assets utilized in one of the radiation oncology centers for approximately $0.4 million. The acquisition of the two radiation treatment centers further expands the Company's presence into the eastern North Carolina market. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $1.2 million, goodwill of $6.4 million, which is deductible for tax purposes, other current liabilities of approximately $0.1 million and an earn-out provision of approximately $0.8 million contingent upon maintaining a certain level of patient volume.

During 2011, the Company acquired the assets of several physician practices in Florida and the non-professional practice assets of several North Carolina physician practices for approximately $0.4 million. The physician practices provide synergistic clinical services and an integrated cancer care service to its patients in the respective markets in which the Company provides radiation therapy treatment services. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $0.4 million.

On February 6, 2012, the Company acquired the assets of a radiation oncology practice and a medical oncology group located in Asheville, North Carolina for approximately $0.9 million. The acquisition of the radiation oncology practice and the medical oncology group, further expands the Company's presence in the Western North Carolina market and builds on the Company's integrated cancer care model. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $0.8 million, and goodwill of $0.1 million, which is all deductible for tax purposes.

In March 2012, the Company entered into a license agreement with the North Broward Hospital District to license the space and equipment and assume responsibility for the operation of the two radiation therapy departments at Broward General Medical Center and North Broward Medical Center, as part of the Company's value added services offering. The license agreement runs for an initial term of ten years, with three separate five year renewal options. The Company recorded approximately $4.3 million of tangible assets relating to the use of the medical equipment pursuant to the license agreement.

On March 30, 2012, the Company acquired the assets of a radiation oncology practice for $26.0 million and two urology groups located in Sarasota/Manatee counties in Southwest Florida for approximately $1.6 million, for a total purchase price of approximately $27.6 million, comprised of $21.9 million in cash and assumed capital lease obligation of approximately $5.7 million. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $7.8 million, intangible assets including non-compete agreements of $6.1 million amortized over 5 years, goodwill of $13.7 million, which is all deductible for tax purposes, and assumed capital lease obligations of approximately $5.7 million.

Total amortization expense recognized for the acquired amortizable intangible assets totaled approximately $0.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2012. Estimated future amortization

expense for the acquired preliminary amortizable intangible assets as of December 31, 2012 is as follows (in thousands):

On December 28, 2012, the Company purchased the remaining 50% interest in an unconsolidated joint venture which operates a freestanding radiation treatment center in West Palm Beach, Florida for approximately $1.1 million. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $0.3 million, intangible assets including non-compete agreements of $0.2 million amortized over 2 years, goodwill of $0.8 million and current liabilities of approximately $0.2 million.

During 2012, the Company acquired the assets of several physician practices in Arizona, California and Florida for approximately $1.7 million. The physician practices provide synergistic clinical services and an integrated cancer care service to its patients in the respective markets in which the Company provides radiation therapy treatment services. The allocation of the purchase price is to tangible assets of $1.7 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company recorded $59.0 million of net patient service revenue and reported net income of $2.2 million in connection with the MDLLC and Clinica de Radioterapia Cancer Center, P.A. acquisitions, respectively. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company recorded $15.8 million of net patient service revenue and reported net income of $1.3 million in connection with the Sarasota/Manatee acquisition.

The following unaudited pro forma financial information is presented as if the purchase of the additional interests in MDLLC and Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A. occurred at the beginning of the 2011 period presented below and the purchase of the Sarasota/Manatee practices had occurred at the beginning of each period presented below. The pro forma financial information is not necessarily indicative of what the Company's results of operations actually would have been had the Company completed the acquisition at the dates indicated. In addition, the unaudited pro forma financial information does not purport to project the future operating results of the combined company:

The operations of the foregoing acquisitions have been included in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss from the respective dates of each acquisition.

The purchase prices of these transactions were allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their respective fair values. The purchase price allocations for certain recent transactions are subject to revision as the Company obtains additional information. The operations of the foregoing acquisitions have been included in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss from the respective dates of acquisition. The following table summarizes the allocations of the aggregate purchase price of the acquisitions, including assumed liabilities.

	Years Ended December 31,

(in thousands):	2012			2011			2010
Fair value of net assets acquired, excluding cash:
Accounts receivable, net	$	—		$	20,306		$	—
Inventories		228			39			65
Other current assets		367			423			614
Deferred tax assets		—			1,925			—
Other noncurrent assets		35			159			18
Property and equipment		10,320			13,980			5,086
Intangible assets		6,275			24,580			—
Goodwill		13,708			86,977			37,923
Current liabilities		(654	)		(11,356	)		(318	)
Long-term debt		(5,746	)		(686	)		—
Deferred tax liabilities		—			(6,720	)		—
Other noncurrent liabilities		1,329			(6,250	)		—
Previously held equity investment		—			(16,150	)		—
Noncontrolling interest		—			(9,114	)		—

	$	25,862		$	98,113		$	43,388

Impairment loss of approximately $97.9 million was recognized in 2010 related to our write-off of our investment in a 50% interest in an international freestanding radiation center in Mohali, India of approximately $0.7 million, certain planned office closings in California and Michigan of approximately $3.5 million and goodwill impairment in certain of our reporting units, including California, Southwest U.S. (Arizona and Nevada) and the Florida east coast of approximately $93.7 million.

During the third quarter of 2011, the Company completed an interim impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets as a result of its review of growth expectations and the release of the final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2012 by CMS on November 1, 2011, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers as well as the changes in treatment patterns and volumes in prostate cancer as a result of the slowing rate of men diagnosed and referred to treatment regimens, as a result of the Preventative Services Task Force report issued in May 2012 recommending against routine PSA screenings for healthy men, as

well as suggested changes in treatment pattern for low risk prostate cancer away from definitive treatment. In performing this test, the Company assessed the implied fair value of its goodwill and intangible assets. As a result, the Company incurred an impairment loss of approximately $237.6 million in 2011 primarily relating to goodwill and trade name impairment in certain of its reporting units, including North East United States (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), California, Southwest U.S. (Arizona and Nevada) , the Florida east coast, Northwest Florida and Southwest Florida. This impairment loss was comprised of approximately $234.9 million relating to goodwill and intangible assets and an impairment loss incurred of approximately $2.7 million in 2011 related to our write-off of our 45% investment interest in a radio-surgery center in Rhode Island due to continued operating losses since its inception in 2008.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company decided to rebrand its current trade name of 21st Century Oncology. As a result of the rebranding initiative and concurrent with the Company's annual impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets, the Company incurred an impairment loss of approximately $121.6 million. Approximately $49.8 million of the $121.6 million related to the trade name impairment as a result of the rebranding initiative. The remaining $71.8 million of impairment relating to goodwill in certain of the Company's reporting units, including North East United States, (New York, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and southeast Michigan), and California, Southwest U.S. (Arizona and Nevada). The remaining domestic U.S. trade name of approximately $4.6 million will be amortized over its remaining useful life through December 31, 2012. The Company incurred approximately $0.9 million in amortization expense during the fourth quarter. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2011, an impairment loss of approximately $0.8 million, reported in impairment loss on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements of a radiation treatment facility office closing in Baltimore, Maryland and $0.7 million impairment on certain deposits on equipment. The Company completed the medical services of its patients undergoing radiation treatment and closed the radiation facility during the first quarter of 2012.

During the third quarter of 2012, the Company estimated an interim impairment test for goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets as a result of the final rule issued on the physician fee schedule for 2013 by CMS on November 1, 2012, which included certain rate reductions on Medicare payments to freestanding radiation oncology providers. In performing this test, the Company assessed the implied fair value of its goodwill and intangible assets. As a result, the Company incurred an impairment loss of approximately $69.8 million in 2012 primarily relating to goodwill impairment in certain of its reporting units, including Mid East United States (Northwest Florida, North Carolina, Southeast Alabama, South Carolina), Central South East United States (Delmarva Peninsula, Central Maryland, Central Kentucky, South New Jersey), California, South West United States (central Arizona and Las Vegas, Nevada), and Southwest Florida regions. In addition, during the third quarter of 2012, an impairment loss of approximately $0.1 million, reported in impairment loss on the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss, was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements of a planned radiation treatment facility office closing in Monroe, Michigan in the Northeast U.S. region.

approximately $11.1 million during the fourth quarter of 2012 primarily relating to goodwill impairment in certain of our reporting units, including Central South East United States (Delmarva Peninsula, Central Maryland, Central Kentucky, South New Jersey), and Southwest Florida of approximately $10.8 million. In addition, during the fourth quarter of 2012, an impairment loss of approximately $0.1 million was recognized related to the impairment of certain leasehold improvements in the Delmarva Peninsula local market and approximately $0.2 million related to a consolidated joint venture in the Central Maryland local market.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company incurred a loss of approximately $0.5 million on a 50% investment in an unconsolidated joint venture in a freestanding radiation facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.

During the fourth quarter of 2011, the Company sold a 2% investment interest in a primary care physician practice for approximately $1.0 million. The Company recorded a gain on the sale of the investment of approximately $0.3 million.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) of 2009 provides for incentive payments for Medicare eligible professionals who are meaningful users of certified EHR technology. The Company accounts for EHR incentive payments utilizing the grant accounting model. Pursuant to the grant accounting model, the Company recognizes EHR incentive payments when the Company is reasonably assured that it has complied with Medicare's meaningful use requirements and the EHR incentives will be received. For the year ended December 31, 2012 the Company recognized approximately $2.3 million of EHR revenues and received approximately $0.5 million of EHR incentive payments. The EHR revenues are presented separately in the accompanying consolidated statement of comprehensive loss.

As result of the acquisition of MDLLC, in which the Company acquired an effective ownership interest of approximately 91.0% on March 1, 2011, the Company recorded a gain of approximately $0.2 million to adjust its initial investment in the joint venture to fair value.

Fair value adjustment of earn-out liability and noncontrolling interests-redeemable.

On March 1, 2011, the Company purchased the remaining 67% interest in MDLLC from Bernardo Dosoretz as well as interests in the subsidiaries of MDLLC from Alejandro Dosoretz and Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of approximately 91% in the underlying radiation oncology practices located in South America, Central America, Mexico and the Caribbean. The Company also purchased an additional 61% interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A. from Bernardo Dosoretz, resulting in an ownership interest of 80%. The Company recorded an estimated contingent earn out payment totaling $2.3 million at the time of the closing of these acquisitions. The earn out payment is contingent upon certain acquired centers attaining earnings before interest, taxes,

depreciation and amortization targets, is due 18 months subsequent to the transaction closing, and is payable through Company financing and issuance of equity units. At December 31, 2012, the Company estimated the fair value of the contingent earn out liability and increased the liability due to the seller to approximately $3.4 million. The Company recorded the $1.0 million to expense in the fair value adjustment caption in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

On April 20, 2010, the Company issued $310.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017 and repaid the existing $175.0 million in aggregate principal amount 13.5% senior subordinated notes due 2015, including accrued and unpaid interest and a call premium of approximately $5.3 million. The Company incurred approximately $10.9 million in early extinguishment of debt as a result of the prepayment of the $175.0 million in senior subordinated notes, which included a call premium payment of approximately $5.3 million, the write-offs of $2.5 million in deferred financing costs and $3.1 million in original issue discount costs.

On May 10, 2012, the Company issued $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 8⁷/8% senior secured second lien notes due 2017. The Company incurred approximately $4.5 million from the early extinguishment of debt as a result of the prepayment of the $265.4 million in senior secured credit facility—Term Loan B and prepayment of $63.0 million in senior secured credit facility—Revolving credit portion, which included the write-offs of $3.7 million in deferred financing costs and $0.8 million in original issue discount costs.

A reconciliation of the statutory federal income tax rate to the Company's effective income tax rate on income before income taxes are as follows:

	Years Ended December 31,

	2012			2011			2010
Federal statutory rate		35.0	%		35.0	%		35.0	%
State income taxes, net of federal income tax benefit		(0.2	)		1.3			1.4
Effects of rates different than statutory		(0.2	)		0.1			—
Nondeductible charge for stock-based compensation		(0.8	)		(0.1	)		(0.3	)
Nondeductible charge for lobbying and political donations		(0.5	)		(0.1	)		(0.3	)
Goodwill impairment		(13.7	)		(21.3	)		(13.8	)
Tax rate changes on existing temporary differences		—			0.1			(0.4	)
Income from noncontrolling interests		(1.0	)		0.2			0.6
Valuation allowance increase		(21.4	)		(7.7	)		(11.2	)
Federal and state true-ups		0.3			—			(1.0	)
Uncertain tax positions current year		—			(0.3	)		(1.1	)
Prior period adjustments for uncertain tax positions and deferred tax true-ups		—			0.1			1.6
Other permanent items		(0.6	)		(0.5	)		(0.4	)

Total income tax provision		(3.1	)%		6.8	%		10.1	%

The Company provides for income taxes using the liability method in accordance with ASC 740, Income Taxes. Deferred income taxes arise from the temporary differences in the recognition of income

and expenses for tax purposes. Deferred tax assets and liabilities are comprised of the following at December 31, 2012 and 2011:

(in thousands):	December 31, 2012			December 31, 2011

Deferred income tax assets:
Provision for doubtful accounts	$	7,592		$	7,438
State net operating loss carryforwards		11,243			8,096
Federal net operating loss carryforwards		55,431			28,382
Deferred rent liability		3,127			2,588
Intangible assets—U.S.		20,610			15,683
Management fee receivable allowance		10,550			8,466
Merger costs and debt financing costs		781			4,985
Unrealized loss on swap		—			1,027
Other		8,686			7,342

Gross deferred income tax assets		118,020			84,007
Valuation allowance		(82,332	)		(45,458	)

Net deferred income tax assets		35,688			38,549

Deferred income tax liabilities:
Property and equipment		(35,059	)		(37,508	)
Intangible assets—Foreign		(5,035	)		(6,253	)
Prepaid expense		(468	)		(885	)
Partnership interests		(599	)		(843	)
Other		(189	)		(434	)

Total deferred tax liabilities		(41,350	)		(45,923	)

Net deferred income tax liabilities	$	(5,662	)	$	(7,374	)

ASC 740, Income Taxes, requires that a valuation allowance be established when it is more likely than not that all or a portion of a deferred tax asset will not be realized. For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company determined that the valuation allowance should be $17.6 million, consisting of $12.3 million against federal deferred tax assets and $5.3 million against state deferred tax assets. This represents an increase of $14.2 million in valuation allowance. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company determined that the valuation allowance was approximately $45.5 million, consisting of $38.3 million against federal deferred tax assets and $7.2 million against state deferred tax assets. This represented an increase of approximately $27.9 million. For the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company determined that the valuation allowance was approximately $82.3 million, consisting of $70.3 million against federal deferred tax assets and $12.0 million against

state deferred tax assets. The valuation allowance increased approximately $36.8 million from $45.5 million in 2011 .

During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company undertook an analysis of its cumulative position with respect to income taxes on the balance sheet and identified certain balance adjustments required to be recorded. Those adjustments resulted in a tax benefit in the amount of $2.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2010, which is the difference between the tax benefit resulting from an $8.7 million adjustment to deferred tax assets and the tax expense resulting from an additional 4.0 million to tax contingency.

The Company has federal net operating loss carryforwards beginning to expire in 2028 available to offset future taxable income of approximately $159.7 million and $81.0 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

At December 31, 2012 and 2011 the Company has state net operating loss carryforwards, primarily in Florida and Kentucky beginning to expire in years 2013 through 2028, available to offset future taxable income of approximately $276.1 million, and $201.8 million, respectively. Utilization of net operating loss carryforwards in any one year may be limited.

ASC 740, Income Taxes, clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes recognized in an entity's financial statements and prescribes a threshold for the recognition and measurement of tax position taken or expected to be taken on a tax return. Under ASC 740, Income Taxes, the impact of an uncertain tax position on the income tax return must be recognized at the largest amount that is more-likely-than-not to be sustained upon audit by the relevant taxing authority. An uncertain income tax position will not be recognized if it has less than a 50% likelihood of being sustained. Additionally, ASC 740, Income Taxes, provides guidance on derecognition, classification, interest and penalties, accounting in interim periods, disclosure, and transition.

Since its adoption for uncertainty in income taxes pursuant to ASC 740, Income Taxes, the Company has recognized interest and penalties accrued related to unrecognized tax exposures in income tax expense. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company accrued approximately $1.3 million in interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax exposures in income tax expense. During the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company released approximately $0.9 million in interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax exposures in income tax expense. During the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company accrued approximately $2.1 million in interest and penalties related to unrecognized tax exposures in income tax expense. The Company did not make any payments of interest and penalties accrued during the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010.

A reconciliation of the beginning and ending balances of the total amounts of gross unrecognized tax benefits is a follows (in thousands):


Gross unrecognized tax benefits at January 1, 2010	$	397
Increase in tax positions for prior years		4,864
Increase in tax positions for current year		706

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2010	$	5,967

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at January 1, 2011	$	5,967
Decrease in tax positions for prior years		(1,971	)
Decrease related to settlements with the taxing authorities		(1,988	)
Decrease related to the lapse of the statute of limitations		(320	)
Increase in tax positions for current year		49

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2011	$	1,737

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at January 1, 2012	$	1,737
Increase in tax positions for prior years		40
Decrease related to settlements with the taxing authorities		(1,191	)
Increase in tax positions for current year		75

Gross unrecognized tax benefits at December 31, 2012	$	661

The total amount of gross unrecognized tax benefits that, if recognized, would affect that effective tax rate was $0.5 million and $0.9 million at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively. The Company does not expect that any unrecognized tax benefits related to the ongoing federal, state or foreign tax audits will reverse within the next 12 months.

The Company is subject to taxation in the U.S., approximately 22 state jurisdictions and countries throughout Latin America, namely, Argentina, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico. However, the principal jurisdictions in which the Company is subject to tax are the U.S., Florida and Argentina.

The Company's future effective tax rates could be affected by changes in the relative mix of taxable income and taxable loss jurisdictions, changes in the valuation of deferred tax assets or liabilities, or changes in tax laws or interpretations thereof. The Company monitors the assumptions used in estimating the annual effective tax rate and makes adjustments, if required, throughout the year. If actual results differ from the assumptions used in estimating the Company's annual effective tax rates, future income tax expense (benefit) could be materially affected.

The Company has not provided U.S. federal and state deferred taxes on the cumulative earnings of non-US affiliates and associated companies that have been reinvested indefinitely offshore. The aggregate undistributed earnings of the Company's foreign operating subsidiaries for which no deferred tax liability has been recorded is approximately $9.2 million. It is not practicable to determine the U.S income tax liability that would be payable if such earnings were not reinvested indefinitely.

The Company is routinely under audit by federal, state, or local authorities in the areas of income taxes and other taxes. These audits may include questioning the timing and amount of deductions and

compliance with federal, state, and local tax laws. The Company regularly assesses the likelihood of adverse outcomes from these audits to determine the adequacy of the Company's provision for income taxes. To the extent the Company prevails in matters for which accruals have been established or is required to pay amounts in excess of such accruals, the effective tax rate could be materially affected. In accordance with the statute of limitations for federal tax returns, the Company's federal tax returns for the years 2008 through 2012 are subject to examination. The Company is currently undergoing a Federal income tax audit for the tax year 2009. The Company closed the New York State audit for tax years 2006 through 2008.

The Senior Credit Facility consists of a $140.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility. Senior Subordinated notes due April 15, 2017 were issued in April 2010 of approximately $310.0 million. In March 2011, the Company issued an additional $50.0 million in Senior Subordinated notes due April 15, 2017 of which the proceeds were used to fund the MDLLC transaction and an additional $16.25 million issued to the seller in the transaction. In May 2012, the Company issued $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due January 15, 2017 of which the proceeds were used to repay its existing senior secured revolving credit facility of approximately $63.0 million and the Term Loan B portion of approximately $265.4 million, of its senior secured credit facilities, which were prepaid in their entirety, cancelled and replaced with the new Revolving Credit Facility and to pay related fees and expenses.

	December 31, 2012			December 31, 2011

$347.0 million senior secured credit facility—(Term Loan B portion) (net of unamortized debt discount of $993 at December 31, 2011) with interest rates at LIBOR or prime plus applicable margin, collateralized by substantially all of the Company's assets. At December 31, 2011 interest rates were at LIBOR plus applicable margin, at 5.0% due at various maturity dates through February 2014	$	—		$	264,367
$90.1 million senior secured credit facility (extended revolving credit portion) with interest rates at LIBOR or prime plus applicable margin, collateralized by substantially all of the Company's assets. At December 31, 2011, interest rates were at LIBOR plus applicable margin, at 5.0% due at various maturity dates through February 2014		—			7,212
$34.9 million senior secured credit facility (non-extended revolving credit portion) with interest rates at LIBOR or prime plus applicable margin, collateralized by substantially all of the Company's assets. At December 31, 2011 interest rates were at LIBOR plus applicable margin, at 4.5% due at various maturity dates through February 2013		—			2,788
$140.0 million revolving credit facility with interest rates at LIBOR or prime plus applicable margin, secured on a first priority basis by a perfected security interest in substantially all of the Company's assets. Interest rates are at LIBOR plus applicable margin due at various maturity dates through October 15, 2016		7,500			—
$350.0 million Senior Secured Second Lien Notes (net of unamortized debt discount of $1,423 at December 31, 2012) due January 15, 2017; semi-annual cash interest payments due on May 15 and November 15, fixed interest rate of 8⁷/8%		348,577			—
$360.0 million Senior Subordinated Notes (net of unamortized debt discount of $1,647 and $2,027 at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively) due April 15, 2017; semi-annual cash interest payments due on April 15 and October 15, fixed interest rate of 9⁷/8%		358,353			357,973
$16.25 million Senior Subordinated Notes (net of unamortized debt discount of $142 and $175 at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively) due April 15, 2017; semi-annual cash interest payments due on April 15 and October 15, fixed interest rate of 9⁷/8%		16,108			16,075
Various other notes payable with average interest rate of 14.3% due through August 2019		3,753			2,933
Seller financing promissory notes with average interest rate of 6.21% due through December 2013		2,093			4,005
Capital leases payable with various monthly payments plus interest at rates ranging from 1.0% to 9.1%, due at various maturity dates through March 2022		25,984			23,680

		762,368			679,033
Less current portion		(11,065	)		(13,945	)

	$	751,303		$	665,088

Maturities under the obligations described above are as follows at December 31, 2012 (in thousands):

On April 20, 2010, the Company issued $310.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017 and repaid the existing $175.0 million in aggregate principal amount 13.5% senior subordinated notes due 2015, including accrued and unpaid interest and a call premium of approximately $5.3 million. The remaining proceeds were used to pay down $74.8 million of the Term Loan B and $10.0 million of the Revolver. A portion of the proceeds was placed in a restricted account pending application to finance certain acquisitions, including the acquisitions of a radiation treatment center and physician practices in South Carolina consummated on May 3, 2010. The Company incurred approximately $11.9 million in transaction fees and expenses, including legal, accounting and other fees and expenses associated with the offering, and the initial purchasers' discount of $1.9 million.

In April 2010, the Company recorded approximately $10.9 million of expenses in early extinguishment of debt as a result of the prepayment of the $175.0 million in senior subordinated notes, which included a call premium payment of approximately $5.3 million, the write-offs of $2.5 million in deferred financing costs and $3.1 million in original issue discount costs.

On April 22, 2010, affiliates of certain initial purchasers of the $310.0 million in aggregate principal amount 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017 provided an additional $15.0 million of commitments to the Revolver, and increased the available commitment from $60.0 million to $75.0 million. The Company paid $2.0 million to Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. for additional transaction advisory services in respect to the incremental amendments to the existing senior secured credit facility, the additional $15.0 million of commitments to the revolver portion, and the complete refinancing of the senior subordinated notes.

In March 2011, Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. ("RTS"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent, issued to DDJ Capital Management, LLC, $50 million in aggregate principal amount of 9⁷/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2017. The proceeds of $48.5 million were used (i) to fund the Company's acquisition of all of the outstanding membership units of MDLLC and substantially all of the interests

of MDLLC's affiliated companies (the "MDLLC Acquisition"), not then controlled by the Company and (ii) to fund transaction costs associated with the MDLLC Acquisition.

In August 2011, the Company entered into a lease line of credit with a financial institution for the purpose of obtaining financing for medical equipment purchases in the commitment amount of $12.5 million. The commitment, subject to various restrictions, was scheduled to be available through November 2011. The Company had utilized approximately $8.7 million under the lease line of credit.

On May 10, 2012, the Company issued $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 8⁷/8% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2017 (the "Notes").

The Notes were issued pursuant to an indenture, dated May 10, 2012 (the "Indenture"), among RTS, the guarantors signatory thereto and Wilmington Trust, National Association, governing the Notes. The Notes are senior secured second lien obligations of RTS and are guaranteed on a senior secured second lien basis by RTS, and each of RTS's domestic subsidiaries to the extent such guarantor is a guarantor of RTS's obligations under the Revolving Credit Facility (as defined below).

Interest is payable on the Notes on each May 15 and November 15, commencing November 15, 2012. RTS may redeem some or all of the Notes at any time prior to May 15, 2014 at a price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Notes redeemed plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, and an applicable make-whole premium. On or after May 15, 2014, RTS may redeem some or all of the Notes at redemption prices set forth in the Indenture. In addition, at any time prior to May 15, 2014, RTS may redeem up to 35% of the aggregate principal amount of the Notes, at a specified redemption price with the net cash proceeds of certain equity offerings.

The Indenture contains covenants that, among other things, restrict the ability of the Company, RTS and certain of its subsidiaries to: incur, assume or guarantee additional indebtedness; pay dividends or redeem or repurchase capital stock; make other restricted payments; incur liens; redeem debt that is junior in right of payment to the Notes; sell or otherwise dispose of assets, including capital stock of subsidiaries; enter into mergers or consolidations; and enter into transactions with affiliates. These covenants are subject to a number of important exceptions and qualifications. In addition, in certain circumstances, if RTS sells assets or experiences certain changes of control, it must offer to purchase the Notes.

RTS used the proceeds to repay its existing senior secured revolving credit facility of approximately $63.0 million and the Term Loan B portion of approximately $265.4 million, of its senior secured credit facilities, which were prepaid in their entirety, cancelled and replaced with the new Revolving Credit Facility described below, and to pay related fees and expenses. Any remaining net proceeds was used for general corporate purposes. RTS incurred approximately $14.4 million in transaction fees and expenses, including legal, accounting and other fees and expenses associated with the offering, and the initial purchasers' discount of $1.7 million.

On May 10, 2012, RTS also entered into the Credit Agreement (the "Credit Agreement") among RTS, as borrower, the Company, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent (in such capacity, the "Administrative Agent"), collateral agent, issuing bank and as swingline lender, the other agents party thereto and the lenders party thereto.

The credit facilities provided under the Credit Agreement consist of a revolving credit facility providing for up to $140 million of revolving extensions of credit outstanding at any time (including revolving loans, swingline loans and letters of credit) (the "Revolving Credit Facility"). RTS may increase the aggregate amount of revolving loans by an amount not to exceed $10 million in the aggregate. The Revolving Credit Facility matures October 15, 2016.

Loans under the Revolving Credit Facility are subject to the following interest rates:

RTS will pay certain recurring fees with respect to the Revolving Credit Facility, including (i) fees on the unused commitments of the lenders under the Revolving Credit Facility, (ii) letter of credit fees on the aggregate face amounts of outstanding letters of credit and (iii) administration fees.

The Credit Agreement contains customary representations and warranties, subject to limitations and exceptions, and customary covenants restricting the ability (subject to various exceptions) of RTS and certain of its subsidiaries to: incur additional indebtedness (including guarantee obligations); incur liens; engage in mergers or other fundamental changes; sell certain property or assets; pay dividends of other distributions; consummate acquisitions; make investments, loans and advances; prepay certain indebtedness, including the Notes; change the nature of their business; engage in certain transactions with affiliates; and incur restrictions on the ability of RTS's subsidiaries to make distributions, advances and asset transfers. In addition, under the Revolving Credit Facility, we will be required to comply with a specific first lien leverage ratio not to exceed 1.25 to 1.00.

actual or asserted invalidity or impairment of any definitive loan documentation and a change of control.

The obligations of RTS under the Revolving Credit Facility are guaranteed by the Company and each direct and indirect, domestic subsidiary of RTS.

The Revolving Credit Facility and any interest rate protection and other hedging arrangements provided by any lender party to the Revolving Credit Facility or any affiliate of such a lender are secured on a first priority basis by a perfected security interest in substantially all of RTS's and each guarantor's tangible and intangible assets (subject to certain exceptions).

The Revolving Credit Facility requires that the Company comply with certain financial covenants, including:

The Revolving Credit Facility also requires that the Company comply with various other covenants, including, but not limited to, restrictions on new indebtedness, asset sales, capital expenditures, acquisitions and dividends, with which the Company was in compliance as of December 31, 2012.

In August 2011, the Company entered into a lease line of credit with a financial institution for the purpose of obtaining financing for medical equipment purchases in the commitment amount of $12.5 million. As of December 31, 2011 the Company had utilized approximately $8.7 million under the lease line of credit.

For the year ended December 31, 2012, the Company incurred deferred financing costs of approximately $14.4 million of which $8.2 million related to the issuance of the $350.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 8⁷/8% senior secured second lien notes due 2017 in May 2012, and $6.2 million related to the Company's $140.0 million senior secured revolving credit facility entered into in May 2012. For the year ended December 31, 2011, the Company incurred deferred financing costs of approximately $4.8 million of which $1.6 million related to the issuance of the $50.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017 in March 2011, $2.9 million related to the amendment to the Company's senior secured credit facility and the $50.0 million incremental amendment in September 2011, and $0.3 million related to the registration of the issuance of the $16.25 million in aggregate principal amount of 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017 in March 2011 related to the MDLLC transaction. For the year ended December 31, 2010, the Company incurred deferred financing costs of approximately $11.9 million for the issuance of $310.0 million in aggregate principal amount of 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017. The consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2012 and 2011, include $22.1 million and $17.2 million, respectively, in other long-term assets related to unamortized deferred financing costs. The Company recorded approximately $5.4 million, $4.5 million, and $3.3 million, to interest expense for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, related to the amortization of deferred financing costs.

The Company leases certain of its treatment centers (each, a "facility" and, collectively, the "facilities") and other properties from partnerships which are majority-owned by related parties (each, a "related-party lessor" and, collectively, the related party lessors"). The related-party lessors construct the facilities in accordance with the Company's plans and specifications and subsequently leases these facilities to the Company. Due to the related-party relationship, the Company is considered the owner of these facilities during the construction period pursuant to the provisions of ASC 840-40, Sale-Leaseback Transactions. In accordance with ASC 840-40, the Company records a construction-in-progress asset for these facilities with a corresponding finance obligation during the construction period. Certain related parties guarantee the debt of the related-party lessors, which is considered to be "continuing involvement" pursuant to ASC 840-40. Accordingly, these leases do not qualify as a normal sale-leaseback at the time that construction was completed and these facilities were leased to the Company. As a result, the costs to construct the facilities and the related finance obligation remain on the Company's consolidated balance sheets after construction was completed. The construction costs are included in real estate subject to finance obligation in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The finance obligation is amortized over the lease during the construction period term based on the payments designated in the lease agreements with a portion of the payment representing a free ground lease recorded in rent expense. The assets classified as real estate subject to finance obligation are amortized on a straight-line basis over their useful lives.

In some cases, the related-party lessor will purchase a facility during the Company's acquisition of a business and lease the facility to the Company. These transactions also are within the scope of ASC 840-40. Certain related parties guarantee the debt of the related-party lessor, which is considered to be continuing involvement pursuant to ASC 840-40. Accordingly, these leases do not qualify as normal sale-leaseback. As a result, the cost of the facility, including land and the related finance obligation are recorded on the Company's consolidated balance sheets. The cost of the facility, including land, is included in real estate subject to finance obligation in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. The finance obligation is amortized over the lease term based on the payments designated in the lease agreements and the Real Estate Subject to Finance Obligation are amortized on a straight-line basis over their useful lives.

As of March 31, 2010, the related party lessors completed the refinancing of certain of their respective mortgages to remove the personal guarantees of the debt related thereto. As a result, of the refinancing of the landlords' mortgages on these respective properties the Company derecognized approximately $64.8 million in real estate subject to finance obligation, $67.7 million in finance obligation and recorded approximately $2.9 million of deferred gains that will be amortized as a reduction of rent expense over 15 years. In addition, the Company entered into a new master lease arrangement with the related party lessors on 28 properties. The initial term of the master lease is 15 years with four 5 year renewal options. Annual payments, including executory costs, total approximately $13.4 million pursuant to the master lease. The lease payments are scheduled to increase annually based on increases in the consumer price index. Subsequent to March 31, 2010 the related party lessors removed the personal guarantees of the debt related to two additional properties. As a result, the Company in 2010 derecognized approximately $4.4 million in real estate subject to finance obligation, $4.5 million in finance obligation. During 2011 the related party lessors completed construction of 2 properties. Upon completion we entered into a new master lease arrangement with the related party lessors for these 2 properties as well as an existing property under lease. The initial

term of the new master lease arrangement is 15 years with four 5 year renewal options. Annual payments, including executory costs, total approximately $0.7 million pursuant to the master lease. The lease payments are scheduled to increase annually based on increases in the consumer price index.

The net book values of real estate subject to finance obligation are summarized as follows:

Depreciation expense relating to real estate subject to finance obligation is classified in depreciation and amortization in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

Future payments of the finance obligation as of December 31, 2012, are as follows:

Interest expense relating to the finance obligation was approximately $0.8 million, $0.8 million, and $2.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The consolidated financial statements include the accounts of the Company and its majority owned subsidiaries in which it has a controlling financial interest. Noncontrolling interests-nonredeemable principally represent minority shareholders' proportionate share of the equity of certain consolidated majority owned entities of the Company. The Company has certain arrangements whereby the noncontrolling interest may be redeemed upon the occurrence of certain events outside of the Company's control. These noncontrolling interests have been classified outside of permanent equity on the Company's consolidated balance sheets. The noncontrolling interests are not redeemable at December 31, 2012 and 2011, and the contingent events upon which the noncontrolling interest may be redeemed is not probable of occurrence at December 31, 2012. Accordingly, the noncontrolling interests are measured at their carrying value at December 31, 2012 and 2011.

(11) Reconciliation of total equity and noncontrolling interests (Continued)

The following table presents changes in total equity for the respective periods (in thousands):

(in thousands):	Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. Shareholder's Equity			Noncontrolling interests— nonredeemable			Total Equity			Noncontrolling interests— redeemable

Balance, January 1, 2010	$	610,298		$	11,709		$	622,007		$	7,294

Net (loss) income		(115,488	)		691			(114,797	)		1,007
Other comprehensive income from unrealized gain on interest rate swap agreement		1,679			—			1,679			—
Other comprehensive loss from share of equity investee		(201	)		—			(201	)		—
Issuance of limited liability company interests		156			—			156			—
Deconsolidation of noncontrolling interest		—			(78	)		(78	)		—
Purchase of noncontrolling interest in a joint venture		(475	)		475			—			—
Stock-based compensation		1,030			—			1,030			—
Payment of note receivable from shareholder		50			—			50			—
Equity contribution in joint venture		—			608			608			—
Cash distributions		—			(2,246	)		(2,246	)		(930	)

Balance, December 31, 2010	$	497,049		$	11,159		$	508,208		$	7,371

Net (loss) income		(353,441	)		2,767			(350,674	)		791
Other comprehensive income from unrealized gain on interest rate swap agreements		2,428			—			2,428			—
Other comprehensive loss from foreign currency translation		(4,265	)		(617	)		(4,882	)		(27	)
Cash contribution of equity		3			—			3			—
Deconsolidation of noncontrolling interest		—			49			49			—
Equity issuance related to MDLLC acquisition		16,250			—			16,250			—
Fair value of noncontrolling interest acquired in connection with the acquisition of medical practices		—			—			—			1,364
Fair value of noncontrolling interest acquired in connection with MDLLC acquisition		—			7,750			7,750			—
Reversal of other comprehensive income of previously held equity investment		338			—			338			—
Stock-based compensation		1,461			—			1,461			—
Payment of note receivable from shareholder		50			—			50			—
Issuance of noncontrolling interest redeemable		—			—			—			71
Equity contribution in joint venture		—			—			—			4,120
Cash distributions		—			(3,687	)		(3,687	)		(962	)

Balance, December 31, 2011	$	159,873		$	17,421		$	177,294		$	12,728

Net (loss) income		(154,208	)		2,470			(151,738	)		609
Other comprehensive loss from unrealized loss on interest rate swap agreement		(333	)		—			(333	)		—
Other comprehensive loss from foreign currency translation		(7,199	)		(498	)		(7,697	)		(185	)
Amortization of other comprehensive income for termination of interest rate swap agreement, net of tax		958			—			958			—
Purchase of noncontrolling interests		—			—			—			(1,189	)
Consolidation of a noncontrolling interest		—			146			146			—
Stock-based compensation		3,257			—			3,257			—
Payment of note receivable from shareholder		72			—			72			—
Cash distributions		—			(3,492	)		(3,492	)		(595	)

Balance, December 31, 2012		2,420		$	16,047		$	18,467		$	11,368

Redeemable equity securities with redemption features that are not solely within the Company's control are classified outside of permanent equity. Those securities are initially recorded at their

(11) Reconciliation of total equity and noncontrolling interests (Continued)

estimated fair value on the date of issuance. Securities that are currently redeemable or redeemable after the passage of time are adjusted to their redemption value as changes occur. In the unlikely event that a redeemable equity security will require redemption, then subsequent adjustments to the initially recorded amount will be recognized in the period that a redemption becomes probable.

ASC 820 requires disclosure about how fair value is determined for assets and liabilities and establishes a hierarchy for which these assets and liabilities must be grouped, based on significant levels of inputs. The three-tier fair value hierarchy, which prioritizes the inputs used in the valuation methodologies, is as follows:

In accordance with ASC 820, the fair value of the 8⁷/8% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2017, the 9⁷/8% Senior Subordinated Notes due 2017, and Term Loan B portion of the senior secured credit facility ("Term Loan B") was based on prices quoted from third-party financial institutions (Level 2). At December 31, 2012, the fair values are as follows (in thousands):

As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company held certain items that are required to be measured at fair value on a recurring basis including interest rate swap agreements and foreign currency derivative contracts. Cash and cash equivalents are reflected in the financial statements at their carrying value, which approximate their fair value due to their short maturity. The carrying values of the Company's long-term debt other than Senior Subordinated Notes and Senior Secured Second Lien Notes approximates fair value due to the length of time to maturity and/or the existence of interest rates that approximate prevailing market rates. There have been no transfers between levels of valuation hierarchies for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011.

The following items are measured at fair value on a recurring basis subject to the disclosure requirements of ASC 820, as of December 31, 2012 and 2011:

The estimated fair value of the Company's interest rate swaps were determined using the income approach that considers various inputs and assumptions, including LIBOR swap rates, cash flow activity, yield curves and other relevant economic measures, all of which are observable market inputs that are classified under Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The fair value also incorporates valuation adjustments for credit risk.

The estimated fair value of the Company's foreign currency derivative agreements considered various inputs and assumptions, including the applicable spot rate, forward rates, maturity, implied volatility and other relevant economic measures, all of which are observable market inputs that are classified under Level 2 of the fair value hierarchy. The valuation technique used is an income approach with the best market estimate of what will be realized on a discounted cash flow basis.

The Company currently maintains equity interests in five unconsolidated joint ventures, a 45% interest in a joint venture with a radio-surgery facility, a 45% interest in a urology surgical facility, a 28.5% interest in the development and management of a proton beam therapy center to be constructed in Manhattan, and two joint ventures in South America.

In 2010, the Company maintained a 33% interest in Medical Developers, LLC, a joint venture which had a 57% interest in the underlying operating entities, and manages 26 radiation therapy treatment centers in South America, Central America and the Caribbean. The centers are located in Argentina, Mexico, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Guatemala, El Salvador and Bolivia. In March 2011, the Company purchased the remaining 67% interest in Medical Developers, LLC.

At December 31, 2010, the Company's investment in Medical Developers, LLC was approximately $14.7 million. Total member's equity as reported by Medical Developers, LLC was $26.2 million at December 31, 2010. The Company's equity in the earnings of Medical Developers, LLC for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $2.0 million, which is recorded in other revenue in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss. The Company's equity in the earnings of a controlling interest in MDLLC for the two months ended February 28, 2011 was approximately $0.3 million. Effective March 1, 2011, the Company consolidated the operations of Medical Developers, LLC.

The Company utilizes the equity method to account for its investments in the unconsolidated joint ventures. At December 31, 2012 and 2011, the Company's investments in the unconsolidated joint ventures were approximately $0.6 million and $0.7 million, respectively. The Company's equity in the earnings (losses) of the equity investments in joint ventures was approximately ($0.8 million), ($1.0 million), and $1.0 million years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, which is recorded in other revenue in the accompanying consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

The condensed financial position and results of operations of the unconsolidated joint venture entities are as follows:

A summary of the changes in the equity investment in the unconsolidated joint ventures is as follows:

(in thousands):

Balance at January 1, 2010	$	18,663
Capital contributions in joint venture		2,339
Distributions		(1,007	)
Share of other comprehensive loss		(201	)
Impairment		(659	)
Equity interest in net income of joint ventures		1,001

Balance at December 31, 2010		20,136

Capital contributions in joint venture		799
Distributions		(634	)
Foreign currency transaction loss		(2	)
Impairment		(2,635	)
Sale of investment		(312	)
Consolidation of investment		(15,674	)
Purchase of investment		50
Equity interest in net income of joint ventures		(1,036	)

Balance at December 31, 2011		692

Capital contributions in joint venture		714
Distributions		(9	)
Foreign currency transaction loss		(5	)
Equity interest in net income of joint ventures		(817	)

Balance at December 31, 2012	$	575

The Company issued to the lessor of one of its treatment centers an unconditional and irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of approximately $0.2 million to serve as security for the performance of the assignees' obligations under the lease. In addition, the Company issued an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of approximately $0.9 million relating to the Company's workers' compensation insurance program and approximately $0.5 million relating to the Company's property insurance program. In November 2011, the Company issued an irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of

approximately $2.0 million to a financial institution to provide to an uncommitted line of credit to three operating entities of Medical Developers LLC.

The Company is obligated under various operating leases for office space, medical equipment, and an aircraft lease. Total lease expense incurred under these leases was approximately $45.1 million, $38.8 million, and $33.1 million for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

Future fixed minimum annual lease commitments are as follows at December 31, 2012:

The Company leases land and space at its treatment centers under operating lease arrangements expiring in various years through 2044. The majority of the Company's leases provide for fixed rent escalation clauses, ranging from 1.0% to 4.0%, or escalation clauses tied to the Consumer Price Index. The rent expense for leases containing fixed rent escalation clauses or rent holidays is recognized by the Company on a straight-line basis over the lease term. Leasehold improvements made by a lessee are recorded as leasehold improvements. Leasehold improvements are amortized over the shorter of their estimated useful lives (generally 39 years or less) or the related lease term plus anticipated renewals when there is an economic penalty associated with nonrenewal. An economic penalty is deemed to occur when the Company forgoes an economic benefit, or suffers an economic detriment by not renewing the lease. Penalties include, but are not limited to, impairment of existing leasehold improvements, profitability, location, uniqueness of the property within its particular market, relocation costs, and risks associated with potential competitors utilizing the vacated location. Lease incentives received are recorded as accrued rent and amortized as reductions to lease expense over the lease term.

Financial instruments, which subject the Company to concentrations of credit risk, consist principally of cash and accounts receivable. The Company maintains its cash in bank accounts with highly rated financial institutions. These accounts may, at times, exceed federally insured limits. The Company has not experienced any losses in such accounts. The Company grants credit, without collateral, to its patients, most of whom are local residents. Concentrations of credit risk with respect to accounts receivable relate principally to third- party payers, including managed care contracts, whose

ability to pay for services rendered is dependent on their financial condition. For the year ended December 31, 2012, a government payor in Argentina represented approximately 24% of the total revenues earned in Argentina.

The Company is involved in certain legal actions and claims arising in the ordinary course of its business. It is the opinion of management, based on advice of legal counsel, that such litigation and claims will be resolved without material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.

The Company has acquired and plans to continue acquiring businesses with prior operating histories. Acquired companies may have unknown or contingent liabilities, including liabilities for failure to comply with health care laws and regulations, such as billing and reimbursement, fraud and abuse and similar anti-referral laws. Although the Company institutes policies designed to conform practices to its standards following completion of acquisitions, there can be no assurance that the Company will not become liable for past activities that may later be asserted to be improper by private plaintiffs or government agencies. Although the Company generally seeks to obtain indemnification from prospective sellers covering such matters, there can be no assurance that any such matter will be covered by indemnification, or if covered, that such indemnification will be adequate to cover potential losses and fines.

The Company is party to employment agreements with several of its employees that provide for annual base salaries, targeted bonus levels, severance pay under certain conditions, and certain other benefits.

The Company has a defined contribution retirement plan under Section 401(a) of the Internal Revenue Code (the Retirement Plan). The Retirement Plan allows all full-time employees after one year of service to defer a portion of their compensation on a pretax basis through contributions to the Retirement Plan. The Company provides for a discretionary match based on a percentage of the employee's annual contribution. At December 31, 2012, the Company accrued approximately $0.6 million related to the Company's approved discretionary match. No Company match was provided for in 2011. At December 31, 2010, the Company accrued approximately $0.6 million related to the Company's approved discretionary match.

The Company has a non-qualified deferred compensation plan whereby certain key employees, physicians and executives may defer a portion of their compensation. Participants earn a return on their deferred compensation based on their allocation of their account balance among mutual funds. Participants are able to elect the payment of benefits on a specified date or upon retirement. Distributions are made in the form of lump sum or in installments elected by the participant. As of

December 31, 2012 and 2011, the liability of the Company to the plan participants, which is recorded in other long-term liabilities was approximately $1.5 million and $0.1 million, respectively. Investments in company-owned life insurance policies ("COLI") were made with the intention of utilizing them as a long-term funding source for the deferred compensation plan. The policies are recorded at their net cash surrender values. As of December 31, 2012 and 2011, the net cash surrender values of the COLI, which is recorded in other long-term assets was approximately $1.5 million and $0.1 million, respectively.

RT Investments adopted an equity-based incentive plan in February 2008 ("2008 Plan"), and authorized for issuance under the plan approximately 1,494,111 units of limited liability company interests consisting of 526,262 Class B Units and 967,849 Class C Units. The units are limited liability company interests and were available for issuance to the Company's employees. Effective as of June 11, 2012, RT Investments entered into the Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement (the "Amended LLC Agreement"). The Amended LLC Agreement established new classes of equity units in RT Investments in the form of Class Management Equity Plan ("MEP") Units, Class Executive Management Equity Plan ("EMEP") Units, Class L Units and Class G Units for issuance to employees, officers, directors and other service providers, establishes new distribution entitlements related thereto, and modifies the distribution entitlements for holders of preferred units and Class A Units of RT Investments. The Amended LLC Agreement also provides that any forfeited or repurchased Class EMEP Units may be reallocated by Dr. Daniel Dosoretz, in his sole discretion, for so long as he is Chief Executive Officer of the Company. The Amended LLC Agreement provided for the cancellation of RT Investments' existing Class B and Class C incentive equity units.

The Class B Units vested over approximately 48 months. Assuming continued employment of the employee with the Company, 25% vest on the first anniversary of the grant date, and the remaining 75% vest in three equal installments on the second, third, and fourth anniversaries from the grant date. The Class C Units vested annually for 34 months based on certain performance conditions and/or market conditions being met or achieved and, in all cases, assuming continued employment. For the Class C Units, the investment return conditions relate to Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P., majority owner of RT Investments ("Vestar") receiving a specified multiple on their investment upon a liquidity event. The performance condition relates to the Company achieving certain operating targets, and the market condition relates to holders of Preferred Units and Class A Units receiving a specified multiple on their investment upon a liquidation event. If an employee holder's employment is terminated, RT Investments may repurchase the holder's vested Class B Units and Class C Units. If the termination occurs within 12 months after the relevant measurement date, all of the Class B and Class C Units will be repurchased at the initial purchase price, or cost. If the termination occurs during the following three-year period, the Class B and Class C units may be purchased at fair market value depending on the circumstances of the holder's departure and the date of termination.

For purposes of determining the compensation expense associated with these grants, management valued the business enterprise using a variety of widely accepted valuation techniques, which considered a number of factors such as the financial performance of the Company, the values of comparable

companies and the lack of marketability of the Company's equity. The Company then used the option pricing method to determine the fair value of these units at the time of grant using the following assumptions: a term of five years, which is based on the expected term in which the units will be realized; a risk-free interest rate of 1.96% and 0.53% for grants issued in 2010 and 2011, respectively, which is the five-year U.S. federal treasury bond rate consistent with the term assumption; and expected volatility of 50% and 55% for grants issued in 2010 and 2011, respectively, which is based on the historical data of equity instruments of comparable companies.

The estimated fair value of the units, less an assumed forfeiture rate of 2.7%, is recognized in expense in the Company's consolidated financial statements on a straight-line basis over the requisite service periods of the awards for Class B Units. For Class B Units, the requisite service period is approximately 48 months, and for Class C Units, the requisite service period is 34 months only if probable of being met. The assumed forfeiture rate is based on an average historical forfeiture rate.

			Weighted- Average Grant Date Fair Value				Weighted- Average Grant Date Fair Value

Nonvested balance at end of period January 1, 2010	372,593		$	8.14	793,771		$	7.06
Units granted	16,665			10.08	43,099			8.75
Units vested	(124,198	)		8.14	—			—

Nonvested balance at end of period December 31, 2010	265,060		$	8.26	836,870		$	7.15

Units granted	41,662			5.49	107,748			4.88
Units forfeited	(20,831	)		9.30	(119,720	)		7.67
Units vested	(136,697	)		8.04	—			—

Nonvested balance at end of period December 31, 2011	149,194		$	7.55	824,898		$	6.78

Units granted	—			—	—			—
Units forfeited	—			—	—			—
Units vested	(114,813	)		8.14	—			—
Units cancelled	(34,381	)		5.57	(824,898	)		6.78

Nonvested balance at end of period December 31, 2012	—		$	—	—		$	—

and Class A Units of RT Investments. In addition to the Preferred Units and Class A Units of RT Investments, the Amended LLC Agreement authorized for issuance under the 2012 Plan 1,100,200 units of limited liability company interests consisting of 1,000,000 Class MEP Units, 100,000 Class EMEP Units, 100 Class L Units, and 100 Class G Units. As of December 31, 2012, there were 84,542 Class MEP Units, 9,257 Class EMEP Units and 100 Class G Units available for future issuance under the 2012 Plan.

Dr. Dosoretz, CEO of the Company received Class L Unit awards in addition to Class MEP and Class EMEP Units. The Class L Units rank lower than the Class MEP and EMEP Units in the waterfall distribution, and will not receive distributions until and unless the performance conditions that result in vesting of the EMEP units occurs. The terms of the Class L unit award to Dr. Dosoretz do not have any service or performance conditions. The Class L units vest upon issuance, and the fair value of the units awarded was recognized upon issuance. The Company recorded approximately $1.0 million of stock-based compensation for the issuance of the Class L Units to the CEO.

management considered the Company's ability to achieve certain growth and profitability milestone in order to maximize shareholder value at the time of potential exit. Management considers an initial public offering ("IPO") of the Company's stock to be one of the exit scenarios for the current shareholders, although sale or merger/acquisition are possible future exit options as well. For the scenarios the enterprise value at exit was estimated based on a multiple of the Company's earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization ("EBITDA") for the fiscal year preceding the exit date. The enterprise value for the Staying Private Scenario was estimated based on a discounted cash flow analysis as well as guideline company market approach. The guideline companies were publicly-traded companies that were deemed comparable to the Company. The discount rate analysis also leveraged market data of the same guideline companies.

For each PWERM scenario, management estimated probability factors based on the outlook of the Company and the industry as well as prospects for potential exit at the exit date based on information known or knowable as of the grant date. The probability-weighted unit values calculated at each potential exit date was present-valued to the grant date to estimate the per-unit value. The discount rate utilized in the present value calculation was the cost of equity calculated using the Capital Asset Pricing Model ("CAPM") and based on the market data of the guideline companies as well as historical data published by Morningstar, Inc. For each PWERM scenario, the per unit values were adjusted for lack of marketability discount to conclude on unit value on a minority, non-marketable basis.

The estimated fair value of the units, less an assumed forfeiture rate of 3.9%, is recognized in expense in the Company's consolidated financial statements over the requisite service period and in accordance with the vesting conditions of the awards for Class MEP Units. For Class MEP Units, the requisite service period is approximately 18 months, and for Class EMEP Units, the requisite service period is 36 months only if met or probable of being met. There was no stock-based compensation cost recorded in the period ended December 31, 2012 for the Class EMEP Units. The assumed forfeiture rate is based on an average historical forfeiture rate.

The Company recorded $3.3 million, $1.5 million, and $1.0 million of stock-based compensation expense for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively, which is included in salaries and benefits in the consolidated statements of comprehensive loss.

As of December 31, 2012, there was approximately $0.7 million, and $3.4 million of total unrecognized compensation expense related to the MEP Units, and EMEP Units, respectively. These costs are expected to be recognized over a weighted-average period of 1.34 years for MEP Units. The Class EMEP Units will be recognized upon an implied equity value threshold during the contractual life of the Class EMEP Units, which is not probable of achievement at December 31, 2012.

In addition to the 2012 equity-based incentive plans, the CFO and COO also received Preferred and Class A Unit awards, entitling them to participate in distributions in accordance with the waterfall distribution of the Amended LLC Agreement. The CFO was granted 296 units and 5,625 units, of Preferred and Class A units, respectively. The COO was granted 500 units and 25,000 units, of Preferred and Class A units, respectively. The weighted-average grant date fair value of the Preferred and Class A Units were $474.96 and $4.56, respectively.

For the CFO, 33.3% of the Preferred and Class A awards vest on January 1, 2013, with the remaining 66.7% vesting in equal amounts on January 1, 2014 and January 1, 2015. For the COO, 33.3% of the Preferred and Class A awards vest upon issuance, with the remaining 66.7% vesting in equal amounts on February 7, 2013 and February 7, 2014. As this creates a service condition, the Company will recognize compensation expense in accordance with the vesting conditions of the award over the remaining service period. Any unvested shares would vest automatically upon the occurrence of a sale or liquidation event, provided the executives remain employed by the Company at the time of the event. Vested shares are subject to forfeiture only in the event of termination for cause, or engaging in prohibited activities. The Company recorded approximately $0.3 million of stock-based compensation for the issuance of the Preferred and Class A Units to the executives.

The Company leases certain of its treatment centers and other properties from partnerships, which are majority owned by related parties. The leases are classified in the accompanying financial statements as either operating leases or as finance obligations pursuant to ASC 840, Leases. These related- party leases have expiration dates through December 31, 2027, and they provide for annual payments and executory costs, ranging from approximately $56,000 to $1.8 million. The aggregate payments the Company made to the entities owned by these related parties were approximately $17.7 million, $15.8 million, and $14.5 million, for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

In October 1999, the Company entered into a sublease arrangement with a partnership, which is owned by related parties to lease space to the partnership for an MRI center in Mount Kisco, New York. Sublease rentals paid by the partnership to the landlord were approximately $755,000, $733,000, and $673,000, for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. In December 2012, the related parties sold their interest in the partnership.

The Company is a participating provider in an oncology network, which is partially owned by a related party. The Company provides oncology services to members of the network. Annual payments

received by the Company for the services were $1,273,000, $884,000, and $867,000 for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

The Company has a wholly owned subsidiary construction company that provides remodeling and real property improvements at certain of its facilities. In addition, the construction company is frequently engaged to build and construct facilities for lease that are owned by related parties. Payments received by the Company for building and construction fees were approximately $1.7 million, $1.4 million, and $0.5 million, for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. Amounts due to the Company for the construction services were approximately $1.3 million and $49,000 at December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The Company purchases medical malpractice insurance from an insurance company owned by a related party. The period of coverage runs from November to October. The premium payments made by the Company were approximately $3.9 million, $5.7 million, and $5.4 million, for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively.

In California, Delaware, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New York, and North Carolina, the Company maintains administrative services agreements with professional corporations owned by related parties, who are licensed to practice medicine in such states. The Company entered into these administrative services agreements in order to comply with the laws of such states, which prohibit the Company from employing physicians. The administrative services agreements generally obligate the Company to provide treatment center facilities, staff, equipment, accounting services, billing and collection services, management and administrative personnel, assistance in managed care contracting, and assistance in marketing services. Fees paid to the Company by such professional corporations under the administrative services agreements were approximately $58.8 million, $79.7 million, and $83.5 million, for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, respectively. These amounts have been eliminated in consolidation.

On February 22, 2008, the Company entered into a management agreement with Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. (Vestar) relating to certain advisory and consulting services for an annual fee equal to the greater of (i) $850,000 or (ii) an amount equal to 1.0% of the Company's consolidated earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization for each fiscal year determined as set forth in the Senior Credit Facility. As part of the management agreement, the Company also paid Vestar a management fee of approximately $10.0 million for services rendered in connection with the consummation of the Merger. This management fee was allocated between goodwill, deferred financing costs, and consulting fees. As part of the management agreement, the Company agreed to indemnify Vestar and its affiliates from and against all losses, claims, damages, and liabilities arising out of the performance by Vestar of its services pursuant to the management agreement. The management agreement will terminate upon such time that Vestar and its partners and their respective affiliates hold, directly, or indirectly in the aggregate, less than 20% of the voting power of the outstanding voting stock of the Company. During the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010, the Company incurred approximately $1.2 million, $1.6 million, and $1.3 million, respectively, of management fees and expenses under such agreement.

On April 22, 2010, affiliates of certain initial purchasers of the $310.0 million in aggregate principal amount 9⁷/8% senior subordinated notes due 2017 provided an additional $15.0 million of

commitments to the Revolver, and increased the available commitment from $60.0 million to $75.0 million. The Company paid $2.0 million to Vestar Capital Partners V, L.P. for additional transaction advisory services in respect to the incremental amendments to the existing Senior Credit Facility, the additional $15.0 million of commitments to the revolver portion, and the complete refinancing of the senior subordinated notes.

In January 2009, the Company purchased from family members of a related party (i) a 33% interest in MDLLC, a joint venture which has a 57% interest in the underlying operating entities, and manages 26 radiation therapy treatment centers in South America, Central America and the Caribbean and (ii) a 19% interest in a joint venture, which operates a treatment center in Guatemala for approximately $10.4 million, subject to final determination of the purchase price based on a multiple of historical earnings before interest, taxes, and depreciation and amortization. In January 2010, the Company finalized the amount due for its 33% interest in the joint venture and paid an additional $1.9 million. On March 1, 2011, the Company purchased the remaining 67% interest in MDLLC. The Company also purchased an additional 61% interest in Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A., resulting in an ownership interest of 80%. The Company consummated these acquisitions for a combined purchase price of approximately $82.7 million.

In 2010, the Company provided medical equipment and parts inventory to Medical Developers, LLC in the amount of approximately $769,000. As of December 31, 2010, amounts due from the sale of the equipment, including accrued interest were approximately $781,000.

The Company operates in one line of business, which is operating physician group practices. As of March 1, 2011, due to the acquisition of MDLLC and Clinica de Radioterapia La Asuncion S.A., the Company's operations were reorganized into two geographically organized groups: the U.S. Domestic includes eight operating segments and International is an operating segment which are aggregated into one U.S. Domestic and one International reporting segment. The accounting policies of the segments are the same as those described in the summary of significant accounting policies. Transactions between reporting segments are properly eliminated. The Company assesses performance of and makes decisions on how to allocate resources to its operating segments based on multiple factors including current and projected facility gross profit and market opportunities.

Total revenues attributable to the Company's operations in Argentina were $62.7 million and $43.5 million for the years ended December 31, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The reconciliation of the Company's reportable segment profit and loss is as follows (in thousands):

	Year ended December 31,

	2012			2011
Facility gross profit	$	212,389		$	224,871
Less:
General and administrative expenses		82,236			81,688
General and administrative salaries		78,812			68,523
General and administrative depreciation and amortization		15,298			11,702
Provision for doubtful accounts		16,916			16,117
Interest expense, net		77,494			60,656
Early extinguishment of debt		4,473			—
Fair value adjustment of earn-out liability and noncontrolling interests—redeemable		1,219			—
Impairment loss		81,021			360,639
Loss on investments		—			250
Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment		—			(234	)
Foreign currency transaction loss		339			106
Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts		1,165			672

Loss before income taxes	$	(146,584	)	$	(375,248	)

The quarterly interim financial information shown below has been prepared by the Company's management and is unaudited. It should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements appearing herein.

RTS' payment obligations under the senior secured credit facility, senior secured second lien notes, and senior subordinated notes are guaranteed by Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. (Parent) and certain domestic subsidiaries of RTS (Subsidiary Guarantors and, collectively with Parent, the "Guarantors"). The consolidated joint ventures, foreign subsidiaries and professional corporations of the Company are non-guarantors. Such guarantees are full, unconditional and joint and several. The following supplemental financial information sets forth, on an unconsolidated basis, balance sheets, statements of comprehensive income (loss), and statements of cash flows information for Parent, RTS, the Subsidiary Guarantors and the non-guarantor subsidiaries. The supplemental financial information reflects the investment of Parent and RTS and subsidiary guarantors using the equity method of accounting.

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors		Subsidiary Non-Guarantors		Eliminations			Consolidated

ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	168		$	124		$	6,545	$	8,573	$	—		$	15,410
Accounts receivable, net		—			—			47,231		39,638		—			86,869
Intercompany receivables		1,425			—			101,763		—		(103,188	)		—
Prepaid expenses		—			90			5,320		633		—			6,043
Inventories		—			—			3,241		656		—			3,897
Deferred income taxes		(68	)		(2,697	)		3,017		288		—			540
Other		—			319			7,065		45		—			7,429

Total current assets		1,525			(2,164	)		174,182		49,833		(103,188	)		120,188
Equity investments in joint ventures		(534	)		802,705			102,230		49		(903,875	)		575
Property and equipment, net		—			—			186,084		34,966		—			221,050
Real estate subject to finance obligation		—			—			16,204		—		—			16,204
Goodwill		—			—			413,984		71,875		—			485,859
Intangible assets, net		—			—			15,555		19,489		—			35,044
Other assets		—			22,082			13,236		8,063		—			43,381
Intercompany note receivable		—			1,750			232		—		(1,982	)		—

Total assets	$	991		$	824,373		$	921,707	$	184,275	$	(1,009,045	)	$	922,301

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	—		$	372		$	20,690	$	6,476	$	—		$	27,538
Intercompany payables		—			92,937			—		10,251		(103,188	)		—
Accrued expenses		—			12,079			26,017		8,305		—			46,401
Income taxes payable		(1,273	)		1,547			1,262		1,415		—			2,951
Current portion of long-term debt		—			—			6,424		4,641		—			11,065
Current portion of finance obligation		—			—			287		—		—			287
Other current liabilities		—			—			3,940		3,744		—			7,684

Total current liabilities		(1,273	)		106,935			58,620		34,832		(103,188	)		95,926
Long-term debt, less current portion		—			730,538			19,561		1,204		—			751,303
Finance obligation, less current portion		—			—			16,905		—		—			16,905
Other long-term liabilities		—			—			16,272		5,858		—			22,130
Deferred income taxes		(156	)		(12,566	)		15,726		3,198		—			6,202
Intercompany note payable		—			—			—		1,982		(1,982	)		—

Total liabilities		(1,429	)		824,907			127,084		47,074		(105,170	)		892,466
Noncontrolling interests—redeemable		—			—			—		—		11,368			11,368
Total Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder's equity (deficit)		2,420			(534	)		794,623		137,201		(931,290	)		2,420
Noncontrolling interests—nonredeemable		—			—			—		—		16,047			16,047

Total equity		2,420			(534	)		794,623		137,201		(915,243	)		18,467

Total liabilities and equity	$	991		$	824,373		$	921,707	$	184,275	$	(1,009,045	)	$	922,301

CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012
(in thousands)

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors			Subsidiary Non-Guarantors			Eliminations			Consolidated

Revenues:
Net patient service revenue	$	—		$	—		$	447,178		$	239,038		$	—		$	686,216
Other revenue		—			—			8,883			(331	)		—			8,552
(Loss) income from equity investment		(149,911	)		(57,470	)		(3,257	)		13			209,808			(817	)
Intercompany revenue		—			756			73,980			—			(74,736	)		—

Total revenues		(149,911	)		(56,714	)		526,784			238,720			135,072			693,951
Expenses:
Salaries and benefits		3,257			—			278,247			91,152			—			372,656
Medical supplies		—			—			49,365			12,224			—			61,589
Facility rent expenses		—			—			33,541			6,261			—			39,802
Other operating expenses		—			—			26,264			12,724			—			38,988
General and administrative expenses		1			1,529			66,485			14,221			—			82,236
Depreciation and amortization		—			3,711			53,491			7,691			—			64,893
Provision for doubtful accounts		—			—			11,545			5,371			—			16,916
Interest expense, net		(2	)		73,964			2,661			871			—			77,494
Electronic health records incentive income		—			—			(2,256	)		—			—			(2,256	)
Early extinguishment of debt		—			4,473			—			—			—			4,473
Fair value adjustment of earn-out liability and noncontrolling interests—redeemable		—			—			—			1,219			—			1,219
Impairment loss		—			—			81,021			—			—			81,021
Foreign currency transaction loss		—			—			—			339			—			339
Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts		—			1,165			—			—			—			1,165
Intercompany expenses		—			—			—			74,736			(74,736	)		—

Total expenses		3,256			84,842			600,364			226,809			(74,736	)		840,535

(Loss) income before income taxes		(153,167	)		(141,556	)		(73,580	)		11,911			209,808			(146,584	)
Income tax (benefit) expense		8,573			8,022			(16,047	)		3,997			—			4,545

Net (loss) income		(161,740	)		(149,578	)		(57,533	)		7,914			209,808			(151,129	)
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests—redeemable and non-redeemable		—			—			—			—			(3,079	)		(3,079	)

Net (loss) income attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder		(161,740	)		(149,578	)		(57,533	)		7,914			206,729			(154,208	)
Other comprehensive loss:		—			(333	)		—			(7,882	)		—			(8,215	)

Comprehensive (loss) income		(161,740	)		(149,911	)		(57,533	)		32			209,808			(159,344	)

Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests-redeemable and non-redeemable:		—			—			—			—			(2,396	)		(2,396	)

Comprehensive (loss) income attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder	$	(161,740	)	$	(149,911	)	$	(57,533	)	$	32		$	207,412		$	(161,740	)

CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2012
(in thousands)

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors			Subsidiary Non-Guarantors			Eliminations			Consolidated

Cash flows from operating activities
Net (loss) income	$	(161,740	)	$	(149,578	)	$	(57,533	)	$	7,914		$	209,808		$	(151,129	)
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation		—			—			46,835			6,217			—			53,052
Amortization		—			3,711			6,656			1,474			—			11,841
Deferred rent expense		—			—			993			241			—			1,234
Deferred income taxes		3,759			157			(3,919	)		(2,020	)		—			(2,023	)
Stock-based compensation		3,257			—			—			—			—			3,257
Provision for doubtful accounts		—			—			11,545			5,371			—			16,916
Loss on the sale of property and equipment		—			—			361			387			—			748
Amortization of termination of interest rate swap		—			958			—			—			—			958
Write-off of loan costs		—			525			—			—			—			525
Early extinguishment of debt		—			4,473			—			—			—			4,473
Termination of derivative interest rate swap agreements		—			(972	)		—			—			—			(972	)
Loss on fair value adjustment of noncontrolling interests—redeemable		—			—			—			175			—			175
Impairment loss		—			—			80,875			146			—			81,021
Loss on foreign currency transactions		—			—			—			33			—			33
Loss on foreign currency derivative contracts		—			1,165			—			—			—			1,165
Amortization of debt discount		—			798			—			—			—			798
Amortization of loan costs		—			5,434			—			—			—			5,434
Equity interest in net loss (earnings) of joint ventures		149,911			57,470			3,257			(13	)		(209,808	)		817
Distribution received from unconsolidated joint ventures		—			—			9			—			—			9
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable and other current assets		4			—			(17,306	)		(4,276	)		—			(21,578	)
Income taxes payable		(1,147	)		(6	)		(1,066	)		98			—			(2,121	)
Inventories		—			—			954			(315	)		—			639
Prepaid expenses		—			(38	)		3,102			198			—			3,262
Intercompany payable / receivable		5,868			7,259			(8,835	)		(5,656	)		1,364			—
Accounts payable and other current liabilities		—			(237	)		(1,369	)		1,605			—			(1	)
Accrued deferred compensation		—			—			1,160			179			—			1,339
Accrued expenses / other current liabilities		—			4,277			(2,065	)		4,046			—			6,258

Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities		(88	)		(64,604	)		63,654			15,804			1,364			16,130
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchases of property and equipment		—			—			(23,651	)		(7,025	)		—			(30,676	)
Acquisition of medical practices		—			—			(25,812	)		(50	)		—			(25,862	)
Proceeds from the sale of property and equipment		—			—			2,987			—			—			2,987
Loans to employees		—			—			(68	)		—			—			(68	)
Purchase of joint venture interests		—			—			—			—			(1,364	)		(1,364	)
Intercompany notes to / from affiliates		—			(1,750	)		(232	)		1,982			—			—
Contribution of capital to joint venture entities		—			(489	)		(225	)		—			—			(714	)
Distributions received from joint venture entities		—			1,539			4,979			—			(6,518	)		—
Payment of foreign currency derivative contracts		—			(670	)		—			—			—			(670	)
Premiums on life insurance policies		—			—			(1,099	)		(214	)		—			(1,313	)
Change in other assets and other liabilities		—			11			272			87			—			370

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities		—			(1,359	)		(42,849	)		(5,220	)		(7,882	)		(57,310	)

CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011 (Continued)
(in thousands)

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors			Subsidiary Non-Guarantors			Eliminations			Consolidated

Cash flows from financing activities
Proceeds from issuance of debt		—			445,845			267			2,051			—			448,163
Principal repayments of debt		—			(365,360	)		(15,151	)		(2,833	)		—			(383,344	)
Repayments of finance obligation		—			—			(109	)		—			—			(109	)
Payments of notes receivable from shareholder		72			—			—			—			—			72
Cash distributions to noncontrolling interest holders—redeemable and non-redeemable		—			—			—			—			(3,920	)		(3,920	)
Payment of loan costs		—			(14,437	)		—			—			—			(14,437	)
Cash distributions to shareholders		—			—			—			(10,438	)		10,438			—

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		72			66,048			(14,993	)		(11,220	)		6,518			46,425

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents		—			—			—			(12	)		—			(12	)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents		(16	)		85			5,812			(648	)		—			5,233
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		184			39			733			9,221			—			10,177

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	168		$	124		$	6,545		$	8,573		$	—		$	15,410

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors		Subsidiary Non-Guarantors		Eliminations			Consolidated

ASSETS
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents	$	184		$	39		$	733	$	9,221	$	—		$	10,177
Accounts receivable, net		—			—			44,135		42,959		—			87,094
Intercompany receivables		6,335			—			91,477		—		(97,812	)		—
Prepaid expenses		—			52			4,968		711		—			5,731
Inventories		—			—			4,140		168		—			4,308
Deferred income taxes		(35	)		(1,924	)		4,925		3		—			2,969
Other		4			814			4,397		810		—			6,025

Total current assets		6,488			(1,019	)		154,775		53,872		(97,812	)		116,304
Equity investments in joint ventures		149,377			778,355			123,310		42		(1,050,392	)		692
Property and equipment, net		—			—			201,806		34,605		—			236,411
Real estate subject to finance obligation		—			—			13,719		—		—			13,719
Goodwill		—			82,491			384,001		90,055		—			556,547
Intangible assets, net		—			3,710			15,936		22,747		—			42,393
Other assets		—			17,248			7,089		8,189		—			32,526
Intercompany note receivable		—			—			—		—		—			—

Total assets	$	155,865		$	880,785		$	900,636	$	209,510	$	(1,148,204	)	$	998,592

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable	$	—		$	609		$	21,838	$	5,301	$	—		$	27,748
Intercompany payables		—			84,272			—		13,473		(97,745	)		—
Accrued expenses		—			7,802			28,337		6,457		—			42,596
Income taxes payable		(126	)		1,553			2,329		1,554		—			5,310
Current portion of long-term debt		—			—			9,923		4,022		—			13,945
Current portion of finance obligation		—			—			161		—		—			161
Other current liabilities		—			—			3,886		2,729		—			6,615

Total current liabilities		(126	)		94,236			66,474		33,536		(97,745	)		96,375
Long-term debt, less current portion		—			648,415			13,757		2,916		—			665,088
Finance obligation, less current portion		—			—			14,105		—		—			14,105
Other long-term liabilities		—			708			15,460		6,491		—			22,659
Deferred income taxes		(3,882	)		(11,951	)		21,553		4,623		—			10,343
Intercompany note payable		—			—			—		—		—			—

Total liabilities		(4,008	)		731,408			131,349		47,566		(97,745	)		808,570
Noncontrolling interests—redeemable		—			—			—		—		12,728			12,728
Total Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder's equity (deficit)		159,873			149,377			769,287		161,944		(1,080,608	)		159,873
Noncontrolling interests—nonredeemable		—			—			—		—		17,421			17,421

Total equity		159,873			149,377			769,287		161,944		(1,063,187	)		177,294

Total liabilities and equity	$	155,865		$	880,785		$	900,636	$	209,510	$	(1,148,204	)	$	998,592

CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011
(in thousands)

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors			Subsidiary Non-Guarantors			Eliminations			Consolidated

Revenues:
Net patient service revenue	$	—		$	—		$	435,258		$	203,432		$	—		$	638,690
Other revenue		—			1			6,574			488			—			7,063
(Loss) income from equity investment		(363,552	)		(342,738	)		2,633			(6	)		702,627			(1,036	)
Intercompany revenue		—			742			80,897			2			(81,641	)		—

Total revenues		(363,552	)		(341,995	)		525,362			203,916			620,986			644,717
Expenses:
Salaries and benefits		1,461			—			263,483			61,838			—			326,782
Medical supplies		—			—			46,590			5,248			—			51,838
Facility rent expenses		—			—			28,902			4,473			—			33,375
Other operating expenses		—			—			23,768			10,224			—			33,992
General and administrative expenses		6			1,929			68,500			11,253			—			81,688
Depreciation and amortization		—			928			46,764			6,392			—			54,084
Provision for doubtful accounts		—			—			11,276			4,841			—			16,117
Interest expense, net		(6	)		58,433			2,482			(253	)		—			60,656
Impairment loss		—			—			359,857			782			—			360,639
Loss (gain) on investments		—			—			251			(1	)		—			250
Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment		—			—			(234	)		—			—			(234	)
Foreign currency transaction loss		—			—			—			106			—			106
Loss on forward currency derivative contracts		—			672			—			—			—			672
Intercompany expenses		—			—			2			81,639			(81,641	)		—

Total expenses		1,461			61,962			851,641			186,542			(81,641	)		1,019,965

(Loss) income before income taxes		(365,013	)		(403,957	)		(326,279	)		17,374			702,627			(375,248	)
Income tax expense		(9,735	)		(37,977	)		16,547			5,800			—			(25,365	)

Net (loss) income		(355,278	)		(365,980	)		(342,826	)		11,574			702,627			(349,883	)
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests—redeemable and non-redeemable		—			—			—			—			(3,558	)		(3,558	)

Net (loss) income attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder		(355,278	)		(365,980	)		(342,826	)		11,574			699,069			(353,441	)
Other comprehensive income (loss):		—			2,428			—			(4,909	)		—			(2,481	)

Comprehensive (loss) income		(355,278	)		(363,552	)		(342,826	)		6,665			702,627			(352,364	)

Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests—redeemable and non-redeemable:		—			—			—			—			(2,914	)		(2,914	)

Comprehensive (loss) income attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder	$	(355,278	)	$	(363,552	)	$	(342,826	)	$	6,665		$	699,713		$	(355,278	)

CONSOLIDATING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2011
(in thousands)

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors			Subsidiary Non-Guarantors			Eliminations			Consolidated

Cash flows from operating activities
Net (loss) income	$	(355,278	)	$	(365,980	)	$	(342,826	)	$	11,574		$	702,627		$	(349,883	)
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation		—			—			40,822			5,150			—			45,972
Amortization		—			928			5,942			1,242			—			8,112
Deferred rent expense		—			—			1,069			202			—			1,271
Deferred income taxes		(2,141	)		(38,285	)		11,220			403			425			(28,378	)
Stock-based compensation		1,461			—			—			—			—			1,461
Provision for doubtful accounts		—			—			11,276			4,841			—			16,117
Loss on the sale of property and equipment		—			—			235			—			—			235
Termination of a derivative interest rate swap agreement		—			(1,880	)		—			—			—			(1,880	)
Impairment loss		—			—			359,857			782			—			360,639
Loss on investments		—			—			251			(1	)		—			250
Gain on fair value adjustment of previously held equity investment		—			—			(234	)		—			—			(234	)
Loss on foreign currency transactions		—			—			—			98			—			98
Loss on forward currency derivative contracts		—			672			—			—			—			672
Amortization of debt discount		—			847			—			—			—			847
Amortization of loan costs		—			4,524			—			—			—			4,524
Equity interest in net loss (earnings) of joint ventures		363,552			342,738			(2,633	)		6			(702,627	)		1,036
Distribution received from unconsolidated joint ventures		—			—			52			—			—			52
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable and other receivables		—			—			(11,807	)		(8,973	)		—			(20,780	)
Income taxes payable		(568	)		5,533			(7,076	)		(1,684	)		(598	)		(4,393	)
Inventories and other current assets		—			—			(1,522	)		(100	)		—			(1,622	)
Prepaid expenses		—			(7	)		2,536			310			—			2,839
Intercompany payable / receivable		(7,177	)		61,149			(56,738	)		2,593			173			—
Accounts payable		—			(15	)		4,338			(1,515	)		—			2,808
Accrued expenses		—			1,424			2,432			1,145			—			5,001

Net cash (used in) provided by operating activities		(151	)		11,648			17,194			16,073			—			44,764
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchases of property and equipment		—			—			(30,733	)		(5,879	)		—			(36,612	)
Acquisition of medical practices		—			—			(63,843	)		3,957			—			(59,886	)
Proceeds from the sale of property and equipment		—			—			6			—			—			6
Repayments from (loans to) employees		—			—			346			(8	)		—			338
Intercompany notes to / from affiliates		—			—			—			—			—			—
Contribution of capital to joint venture entities		—			(57,647	)		(299	)		—			57,147			(799	)
Distributions received from joint venture entities		—			1,379			6,442			—			(7,240	)		581
Proceeds from sale of equity interest in a joint venture		—			—			4,432			—			(4,120	)		312
Proceeds from sale of investments		—			—			1,035			—			—			1,035
Purchase of investments		—			—			—			(79	)		—			(79	)
Payment of foreign currency derivative contracts		—			(1,486	)		—			—			—			(1,486	)
Change in other assets and other liabilities		3			(1	)		(233	)		39			—			(192	)

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		3			(57,755	)		(82,847	)		(1,970	)		45,787			(96,782	)
Cash flows from financing activities
Proceeds from issuance of debt		—			97,375			11,408			2,422			—			111,205
Principal repayments of debt		—			(46,500	)		(10,711	)		(566	)		—			(57,777	)
Repayments of finance obligation		—			—			(95	)		—			—			(95	)
Proceeds from equity contribution		3			—			57,147			—			(57,147	)		3
Payments of notes receivable from shareholder		50			—			—			—			—			50
Proceeds from issuance of noncontrolling interest		—			—			—			—			4,120			4,120
Cash distributions to noncontrolling interest holders—redeemable and non-redeemable		—			—			—			—			(4,428	)		(4,428	)
Consolidation of noncontrolling interest		—			—			—			(33	)		—			(33	)
Payments of loan costs		—			(4,809	)		—			—			—			(4,809	)
Cash distributions to shareholders		—			—			—			(11,668	)		11,668			—

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		53			46,066			57,749			(9,845	)		(45,787	)		48,236

Effect of exchange rate changes on cash and cash equivalents		—			—			—			(18	)		—			(18	)
Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents		(95	)		(41	)		(7,904	)		4,240			—			(3,800	)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		279			80			8,637			4,981			—			13,977

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	184		$	39		$	733		$	9,221		$	—		$	10,177

CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME (LOSS)
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
(in thousands)

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors			Subsidiary Non-Guarantors			Eliminations			Consolidated

Revenues:
Net patient service revenue	$	—		$	—		$	391,643		$	144,270		$	—		$	535,913
Other revenue		—			—			6,377			672			—			7,049
(Loss) income from equity investment		(113,441	)		(48,528	)		4,354			—			158,616			1,001
Intercompany revenue		—			569			81,966			—			(82,535	)		—

Total revenues		(113,441	)		(47,959	)		484,340			144,942			76,081			543,963
Expenses:
Salaries and benefits		1,030			—			244,692			36,580			—			282,302
Medical supplies		—			—			40,779			2,248			—			43,027
Facility rent expenses		—			—			25,166			2,719			—			27,885
Other operating expenses		—			—			23,965			3,138			—			27,103
General and administrative expenses		2			2,669			59,567			3,560			—			65,798
Depreciation and amortization		—			—			42,864			3,482			—			46,346
Provision for doubtful accounts		—			—			3,566			5,265			—			8,831
Interest expense, net		(9	)		54,934			4,011			(431	)		—			58,505
Loss on sale of assets of a radiation treatment center		—			—			1,903			—			—			1,903
Early extinguishment of debt		—			10,947			—			—			—			10,947
Impairment Loss		—			—			97,916			—			—			97,916
Intercompany expenses		—			—			—			82,703			(82,703	)		—

Total expenses		1,023			68,550			544,429			139,264			(82,703	)		670,563

(Loss) income before income taxes		(114,464	)		(116,509	)		(60,089	)		5,678			158,784			(126,600	)
Income tax (benefit) expense		(454	)		(1,389	)		(11,142	)		6			169			(12,810	)

Net (loss) income		(114,010	)		(115,120	)		(48,947	)		5,672			158,615			(113,790	)
Net income attributable to noncontrolling interests—redeemable and non-redeemable		—			—			—			—			(1,698	)		(1,698	)

Net (loss) income attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder		(114,010	)		(115,120	)		(48,947	)		5,672			156,917			(115,488	)
Other comprehensive income (loss):		—			1,679			(201	)		—			—			1,478

Comprehensive (loss) income		(114,010	)		(113,441	)		(49,148	)		5,672			158,615			(112,312	)

Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interests—redeemable and non-redeemable:		—			—			—			—			(1,698	)		(1,698	)

Comprehensive (loss) income attributable to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. shareholder	$	(114,010	)	$	(113,441	)	$	(49,148	)	$	5,672		$	156,917		$	(114,010	)

CONSOLIDATING STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010
(in thousands)

	Parent			RTS			Subsidiary Guarantors			Subsidiary Non-Guarantors			Eliminations			Consolidated

Cash flows from operating activities
Net (loss) income	$	(114,010	)	$	(115,120	)	$	(48,947	)	$	5,672		$	158,615		$	(113,790	)
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:
Depreciation		—			—			35,581			3,430			—			39,011
Amortization		—			—			7,283			52			—			7,335
Deferred rent expense		—			—			895			285			—			1,180
Deferred income tax provision (benefit)		(1,627	)		(1,335	)		(15,976	)		(335	)		(425	)		(19,698	)
Stock-based compensation		1,030			—			—			—			—			1,030
Impairment Loss		—			—			97,916			—			—			97,916
Provision for doubtful accounts		—			—			3,566			5,265			—			8,831
Loss on the sale of property and equipment		—			—			734			—			—			734
Loss on sale of assets of a radiation treatment center		—			—			1,903			—			—			1,903
Write off of pro-rata debt discount		—			494			—			—			—			494
Write off of loan costs		—			1,593			—			—			—			1,593
Early Extinguishment of debt		—			10,947			—			—			—			10,947
Amortization of debt discount		—			791			—			—			—			791
Amortization of loan costs		—			3,350			—			—			—			3,350
Equity interest in net earnings of joint ventures		113,441			48,528			(4,354	)		—			(158,616	)		(1,001	)
Distribution received from unconsolidated joint ventures		—			—			980			—			—			980
Changes in operating assets and liabilities:
Accounts receivable and other receivables		—			—			(11,660	)		(4,406	)		—			(16,066	)
Income taxes receivable / payable		442			1,220			4,178			39			598			6,477
Inventories		—			—			103			4			—			107
Prepaid expenses		—			(1	)		4,214			212			—			4,425
Intercompany payable / receivable		732			10,900			(9,804	)		(1,656	)		(172	)		—
Accounts payable		—			379			8,071			4			—			8,454
Accrued expenses		—			(4,483	)		8,632			(163	)		5			3,991

Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		8			(42,737	)		83,315			8,403			5			48,994
Cash flows from investing activities
Purchases of property and equipment		—			—			(43,260	)		(521	)		—			(43,781	)
Acquisition of radiation centers		—			—			(43,388	)		—			—			(43,388	)
Purchase of joint venture interests		—			(1,000	)		—			—			—			(1,000	)
Proceeds from the sale of property and equipment		—			—			1,693			—			—			1,693
Repayments from (loans to) employees		—			—			457			—			—			457
Intercompany notes to / from affiliates		—			500			—			(500	)		—			—
Contribution of capital to joint venture entities		—			(8,000	)		(3,711	)		—			8,000			(3,711	)
Proceeds from sale of equity interest in joint venture		—			—			300			308			(608	)		—
Distributions received from joint venture		—			1,166			4,140			—			(5,279	)		27
Change in other assets and other liabilities		—			(2,005	)		(826	)		28			(5	)		(2,808	)

Net cash provided by (used in) investing activities		—			(9,339	)		(84,595	)		(685	)		2,108			(92,511	)
Cash flows from financing activities
Proceeds from issuance of debt (net of original issue discount of $1,950)		—			316,550			—			—			—			316,550
Principal repayments of debt		—			(260,667	)		(10,628	)		—			—			(271,295	)
Repayments of finance obligation		—			—			(302	)		—			—			(302	)
Payment of call premium on senior subordinated notes		—			(5,250	)		—			—			—			(5,250	)
Proceeds from equity contribution		156			—			8,000			—			(8,000	)		156
Payments of notes receivable from shareholder		50			—			—			—			—			50
Proceeds from issuance of noncontrolling interest		—			—			—			—			608			608
Cash distributions to noncontrolling interest holders—redeemable and non-redeemable		—			—			—			—			(3,176	)		(3,176	)
Deconsolidation of noncontrolling interest		—			—			—			(14	)		—			(14	)
Payments of loan costs		—			(12,791	)		—			—			—			(12,791	)
Cash distributions to shareholders		—			—			—			(8,455	)		8,455			—

Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		206			37,842			(2,930	)		(8,469	)		(2,113	)		24,536

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents		214			(14,234	)		(4,210	)		(751	)		—			(18,981	)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		65			14,314			12,847			5,732			—			32,958

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	279		$	80		$	8,637		$	4,981		$	—		$	13,977

We have audited the combined special-purpose balance sheet of Vidt Centro Médico S.A., Ceditrin—Centro de Diagnóstico y Tratamiento S.A., CITO Centro de Interconsulta y Tratamiento Oncológico S.A., Instituto Médico Dean Funes S.A., Centro de Oncología y Radioterapia de Mar del Plata S.A., Centro de Radioterapia Siglo XXI S.A., Centro de Radiaciones de la Costa S.A., Instituto Privado de Radioterapia Cuyo S.A., Centro de Radioterapia San Juan S.A., Instituto de Radiaciones Salta S.A., Centro Médico de Radioterapia Irazú S.A., Clínica de Radioterapia de Occidente S.A. de C.V., Centro de Radioterapia y Oncología Integral S.A., Centro de Radioterapia del Cibao S.A., Servicios y Soluciones Médicas S.A., Clínica de Radioterapia La Asunción S.A., Centro de Radioterapia Los Mangales S.A., Terapia Radiante S.A., Centro Oncológico de las Sierras S.A., Emprendimientos Médicos y Tecnológicos S.A., Centro de Diagnóstico y Tratamiento S.A. and EMTRO S.A., altogether entities under common control of Medical Developers, LLC (the "Company") and referred to as the "Operating Entities", as of December 31, 2011, and the related combined special-purpose statements of comprehensive income, changes in equity, and cash flows for the ten-month period from March 1, through December 31, 2011. These combined special-purpose financial statements, none of which are included herein, are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these combined special-purpose financial statements based on our audit.

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the combined special-purpose financial statements are free of material misstatements. An audit includes consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the combined special-purpose financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall combined special-purpose financial statements presentation. We believe that our audit provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such combined special-purpose financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Operating Entities at December 31, 2011, and the combined results of their operations and their cash flows for the ten-month period from March 1, through December 31, 2011, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee, and its network of member firms, each of which is a legally separate and independent entity. Please see www.deloitte.com/about for a detailed description of the legal structure of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited and its member firms.

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized, on March 28, 2013.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant in the capacities and on the date indicated.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION TO BE FURNISHED WITH REPORTS FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE ACT BY REGISTRANTS WHICH HAVE NOT REGISTERED SECURITIES PURSUANT TO SECTION 12 OF THE ACT

No annual report to security holders covering the registrant's last fiscal year and no proxy material have been sent to security holders with respect to any annual or other meeting of security holders.

Exhibit Number			Description

	1.1		Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2011, among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., the guarantors named therein and the several purchasers named in Schedule I thereto, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 1.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	2.1		Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated January 1, 2009, among Radiation Therapy Services International, Inc., Medical Developers, LLC, Lisdey, S.A., Alejandro Dosoretz and Bernardo Dosoretz, for the purchase of membership interests in Medical Developers, LLC, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.1 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.*
	2.2		Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of April 1, 2010, by and among 21st Century Oncology of South Carolina, LLC, R. Steven Bass, M.D., Paul Goetowski, M.D. and Todd Williams, M.D. concerning the purchase of all of the outstanding capital stock of Carolina Regional Cancer Center, P.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 2.2 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	3.1		Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (as successor to RTS MergerCo, Inc.), incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	3.2		Bylaws of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (as successor to RTS MergerCo, Inc.), incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	3.3		Certificate of Incorporation of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.3 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	3.4		Certificate of Amendment of the Certificate of Incorporation of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.4 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K, filed on March 11, 2011.
	3.5		Bylaws of Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 3.4 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	4.1		Registration Rights Agreement, dated April 20, 2010, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., the guarantors named therein as guarantors, Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, Daiwa Capital Markets America, Inc. and Fifth Third Securities, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	4.2		Indenture, dated April 20, 2010, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., each guarantor named therein as guarantors and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	4.3		First Supplemental Indenture, dated as of June 24, 2010, by and among Phoenix Management Company, LLC, Carolina Regional Cancer Center, LLC, Atlantic Urology Clinics, LLC, Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., each other then existing guarantor named therein and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	4.4		Second Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 29, 2010, by and Derm-Rad Investment Company, LLC, 21st Century Oncology of Pennsylvania, Inc., Gettysburg Radiation, LLC, Carolina Radiation and Cancer Treatment Center, Inc., 21st Century Oncology of Kentucky, LLC, New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and Radiation Therapy School for Radiation Therapy Technology, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., each other then existing guarantor named therein and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.4 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	4.5		Third Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 1, 2011, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. each other then existing guarantor named therein and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	4.6		Form of Notes, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	4.7		Fourth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of March 30, 2011, by and among Aurora Technology Development, LLC, Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. each other then existing guarantor named therein and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.7 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on April 1, 2011.
	4.8		Fifth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of September 30, 2011 by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., 21st Century Oncology Services, Inc., each other then existing guarantor named therein and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.8 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 8, 2011.
	4.9		Sixth Supplemental Indenture, dated as of January 25, 2012, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Goldsboro Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., each other then existing guarantor named therein and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.9 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2012.
	4.10		Indenture, dated as of May 10, 2012, among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., the guarantors named therein as guarantors and Wilmington Trust, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 14, 2012.
	4.11		Registration Rights Agreement, dated as of May 10, 2012, among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., the guarantors named therein as guarantors and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.2 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 14, 2012.
	4.12		Seventh Supplemental Indenture, dated as of May 10, 2012, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., AHLC, LLC, Asheville CC, LLC, Sampson Simulator, LLC and Sampson Accelerator, LLC, each other then existing guarantor named therein and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s' Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on May 15, 2012.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.1		Credit Agreement, dated February 21, 2008, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. identified therein as the guarantors, the institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), in its capacity as administrative agent for the lenders thereto and the other agents and arrangers named therein, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.2		Amendment No. 1, dated August 15, 2008, to the Credit Agreement, dated February 21, 2008, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. identified therein as the guarantors, the institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), in its capacity as administrative agent for the lenders thereto and the other agents and arrangers named therein, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.3		Amendment No. 2, dated April 1, 2010, to the Credit Agreement, dated February 21, 2008, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. identified therein as the guarantors, the institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), in its capacity as administrative agent for the lenders thereto and the other agents and arrangers named therein, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.4		Incremental Amendment, dated April 22, 2010, to the Credit Agreement dated February 21, 2008, by and among the Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. identified therein as the guarantors, the institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), in its capacity as administrative agent for the lenders thereto and the other agents and arrangers named therein and Barclays Bank PLC, as Incremental Revolving Lender, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.5		Incremental Amendment, dated April 22, 2010, to the Credit Agreement dated February 21, 2008, by and among the Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. identified therein as the guarantors, the institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), in its capacity as administrative agent for the lenders thereto and the other agents and arrangers named therein and Bank of America, N.A., as Incremental Revolving Lender, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.6		Waiver and Amendment No. 3, dated May 3, 2010, to the Credit Agreement, dated February 21, 2008, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. identified therein as the guarantors, the institutions from time to time party thereto as lenders, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), in its capacity as administrative agent for the lenders thereto and the other agents and arrangers named therein, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.7		Management Agreement, dated February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC and Vestar Capital Partners, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.8		Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement, dated March 25, 2008, by and among Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC and the other Securityholders party thereto, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.8 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.9		Form of Management Stock Contribution and Unit Subscription Agreement (Preferred Units and Class A Units), incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.9 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.10		Management Stock Contribution and Unit Subscription Agreement (Preferred Units and Class A Units), dated February 21, 2008, by and between Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC and Daniel E. Dosoretz, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.10 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.+
	10.11		Form of Management Unit Subscription Agreement (Class B Units and Class C Units), incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.11 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.12		Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated September 30, 2008, among Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., Maryland Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC f/k/a Maryland Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., Phoenix Management Company, LLC and American Consolidated Technologies, LLC for certain properties located in Florida, Maryland and Michigan, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.12 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.13		Master Lease, dated September 30, 2008, among Nationwide Health Properties, Inc., 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., Maryland Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC f/k/a Maryland Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., Phoenix Management Company, LLC and American Consolidated Technologies, LLC for certain facilities located in Florida, Maryland and Michigan, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.14		Master Lease, dated March 31, 2010, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Master Lease, dated April 15, 2010, among Theriac Rollup, LLC, and its wholly-owned subsidiaries as Landlord and Arizona Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., 21st Century Oncology, LLC, 21st Century Oncology Management Services, Inc., 21st Century Oncology of El Segundo, LLC, 21st Century Oncology of Kentucky, LLC, Nevada Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., West Virginia Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., 21st Century Oncology of New Jersey, Inc., Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC, Jacksonville Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., 21st Century Oncology of Jacksonville, Inc., California Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and Palms West Radiation Therapy, LLC, collectively as Tenant for certain facilities located in Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Nevada and West Virginia, as guaranteed by Radiation Therapy Services, Inc, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.14 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.15		Lease, dated December 29, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Peoria, LLC and Arizona Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Peoria, Arizona, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.15 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.16		Lease, dated December 29, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Gilbert, LLC and Arizona Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Gilbert, Arizona, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.16 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.17		Lease, dated December 29, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Rancho Mirage, LLC and California Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Rancho Mirage, California, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.17 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.18		Lease, dated December 29, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Bradenton, LLC and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Lakewood Ranch, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.18 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.19		Lease, dated December 29, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Hammonton, LLC and 21st Century Oncology of New Jersey, Inc., for premises in Hammonton, New Jersey, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.19 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.20		Lease, dated effective December 11, 2008, between Theriac Enterprises of Jacksonville, LLC and 21st Century Oncology of Jacksonville, Inc., for premises in Jacksonville, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.20 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.21		Master Lease Agreement, dated December 21, 2010, between Theriac Rollup 2, LLC and West Virginia Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. for premises in Princeton, West Virginia, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.21 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on March 11, 2011.
	10.22		Lease Agreement, dated September 16, 2008, as amended by that certain Second Amendment to Lease, effective July 1, 2008, and Third Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Harrington, LLC and Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC, for premises in Southbridge, Massachusetts, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.22 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.23		Ground Lease, dated September 15, 2008, between Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc. and Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC, for premises in Southbridge, Massachusetts, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.23 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.24		Construction Sublease, dated September 16, 2008, among Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc., Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC and Theriac Enterprises of Harington, LLC, for premises in Southbridge, Massachusetts, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.24 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.25		Lease, dated September 16, 2008, between Theriac Enterprises of Harington, LLC and Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc., for premises in Southbridge, Massachusetts, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.25 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.26		Blanket Amendment to Leases, dated effective May 5, 2008, amending the: (i) Ground Lease between Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc. and Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC, (ii) Construction Sublease, among Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc., Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC and Theriac Enterprises of Harington, LLC, (iii) Lease, between Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC and Theriac Enterprises of Harington, LLC, and (iv) Lease, between Theriac Enterprises of Harington, LLC and Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc., for premises in Southbridge, Massachusetts, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.26 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.27		Lease Agreement, dated August 21, 2007, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated December 31, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Scottsdale, LLC and Arizona Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Scottsdale, Arizona, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.27 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.28		Lease, dated October 4, 1996, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between 445 Partners, LLC and North Carolina Radiation Enterprises, LLC, for premises in Asheville, North Carolina, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.28 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.29		Lease Agreement effective July 1, 1987, between Kyle, Sheridan & Thorn Associates and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., as successor in interest to Katin, Dosoretz Radiation Therapy Associates, P.A., for premises in Ft. Myers, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.29 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.30		Lease, dated December 3, 1999, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Henderson Radiation Associates and Nevada Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Henderson, Nevada, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.30 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.31		Lease, dated August 1, 2007, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Nevada Radiation Enterprises, LLC and Nevada Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Las Vegas, Nevada, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.31 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.32		Lease, dated December 31, 1999, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Tamarac Radiation Associates and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Tamarac, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.33		Lease, dated January 1, 2001, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 3, 2009, between Bonita Radiation Associates and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Bonita Springs, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.33 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.34		Lease Agreement, dated May 21, 2001, between Fort Walton Radiation Associates, LLP and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.34 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.35		Lease Agreement, dated January 18, 2005, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated December 31, 2009, between Fort Walton Beach Radiation Enterprises, LLC and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Fort Walton Beach, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.35 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.36		Lease Agreement, dated November 17, 2000, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between West Palm Radiation Associates, LLC and Palms West Radiation Associates, LLC, for premises in Palm Beach County, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.36 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.37		Lease, dated May 1, 2002, between Bradenton Radiation Associates and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, for premises in Bradenton, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.37 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.38		Lease Agreement, dated October 1, 2002, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc. and Plantation Radiation Associates, for premises in Plantation, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.38 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.39		Lease Agreement, dated January 21, 2003, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Yonkers Radiation Enterprises, LLC and New York Radiation Therapy Management Services, Incorporated, for premises in Yonkers, New York, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.39 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.40		Lease, dated February 1, 2003, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Lehigh Radiation Associates and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Lehigh Acres, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.40 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.41		Lease, dated November 19, 2003, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Destin Radiation Enterprises, LLC and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.41 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.42		Sublease agreement dated October 21, 1999 between Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Westchester MRI Specialists, P.C, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.42 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.43		Lease, dated June 1, 2005, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated December 31, 2009, between Arizona Radiation Enterprises, LLC and Arizona Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Scottsdale, Arizona, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.43 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.44		Lease, dated January 30, 2003, effective February 20, 2004, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Crestview Radiation Enterprises, LLC and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Crestview, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.44 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.45		Lease, dated October 2005, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated December 31, 2009, between Palm Springs Radiation Enterprises, LLC and California Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Palm Desert, California, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.45 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.46		Lease Agreement, dated February 7, 2007, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Littlestown, LLC and 21st Century Oncology of Pennsylvania, Inc., for premises in Littlestown, Pennsylvania, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.46 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.47		Lease Agreement, dated March 12, 2007, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease Agreement, dated December 31, 2009, between Theriac Enterprises of Casa Grande, LLC and Arizona Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., for premises in Casa Grande, Arizona, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.47 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.48		Lease Agreement, dated August 17, 2007, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Lease, dated December 31, 2009, between Marco Island Radiation Enterprises, LLC and 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., for premises in Naples, Florida, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.48 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.49		Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 1997, as amended by that certain Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2008, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2009, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2010, between New York Radiation Therapy Management Services, Incorporated and Yonkers Radiation Medical Practice, P.A. (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.49 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010), Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2011, between New York Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC f/k/a New York Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and Yonkers Radiation Medical Practice, P.A.,(incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.49 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on March 11, 2011), Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2012, between New York Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC and Yonkers Radiation Medical Practice, P.A., (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.49 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2012) and Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2013, between New York Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC and Yonkers Radiation Medical Practice, P.A.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.50		Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2002, as amended by that certain Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2002, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2004, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2005, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2006, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2008, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2009, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2010, between North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC f/k/a North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and Radiation Therapy Associates of Western North Carolina, P.A. (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.50 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010), Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2011, between North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC and Radiation Therapy Associates of Western North Carolina, P.A., (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.50 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on March 11, 2011), Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2012, between North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC and Radiation Therapy Associates of Western North Carolina, P.A.,. (incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.50 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2012) and Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2012, between North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC and Radiation Therapy Associates of Western North Carolina, P.A.
	10.51		Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 9, 1998, as amended by that certain Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 1999, Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 1999, Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, January 1, 2001, Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, January 1, 2002, Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, January 1, 2003, Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, January 1, 2004, Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, January 1, 2005, Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, January 1, 2006, and Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, August 1, 2006, between Nevada Radiation Therapy Management Services, Incorporated and Michael J. Katin, M.D., Prof. Corp., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.51 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.52		Administrative Services Agreement, dated October 31, 1998, as amended by that certain Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement effective April 1, 2005, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2008, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2009, Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2010, between Maryland Radiation Therapy Management Services LLC f/k/a Maryland Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and Katin Radiation Therapy, P.A. (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.52 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010), Addendum to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2011, between Maryland Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC and Katin Radiation Therapy, P.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.52 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on March 11, 2011).
	10.53		Professional Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2005, between Berlin Radiation Therapy Treatment Center, LLC and Katin Radiation Therapy, P.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.53 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.54		Independent Contractor Agreement, dated October 18, 2005, between Katin Radiation Therapy, P.A. and Ambergris, LLC, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.54 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.55		Administrative Services Agreement, dated August 1, 2003, as amended by that certain Amendment to Administrative Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2005, between California Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and 21st Century Oncology of California, a Medical Corporation, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.55 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.56		Management Services Agreement, dated May 1, 2006, between 21st Century Oncology of California, a Medical Corporation and California Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., as successor by assignment pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement, dated May 1, 2006, between California Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and LHA, Inc., as amended by that certain Addendum to Management Services Agreement, dated August 1, 2006, Second Amendment to Management Services Agreement, dated November 1, 2006, and Third Addendum to Management Services Agreement, dated August 1, 2007, for premises in Palm Desert, Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, California, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.56 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.57		Facilities and Management Services Agreement, dated October 13, 2008, among 21st Century Oncology—CHW, LLC, 21st Century Oncology of California, A Medical Corporation and Redding Radiation Oncologists, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.57 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.58		Five Party Agreement, dated May 5, 2009, among Central Massachusetts Comprehensive Cancer Center, LLC, Harrington Memorial Hospital, Inc., Theriac Enterprises of Harrington, LLC, Bank of America, N.A., and Alliance Oncology, LLC, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.58 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.59		Management Services Agreement, dated June 1, 2005, as amended by that certain Addendum, dated January 1, 2006, between New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and Massachusetts Oncology Services, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.59 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.60		Professional Services Agreement, dated January 1, 2009, between Radiosurgery Center of Rhode Island, LLC and Massachusetts Oncology Services, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.60 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.61		Radiation Therapy Services Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2010, between South County Radiation Therapy, LLC and Massachusetts Oncology Services, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.61 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.62		Radiation Therapy Services Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2010 between Southern New England Regional Cancer Center, LLC and Massachusetts Oncology Services, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.62 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.63		Transition Agreement and Stock Pledge, dated 2008, among 21st Century Oncology—CHW, LLC, Redding Radiation Oncologists, P.C. and Michael J. Katin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.63 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.64		Transition Agreement and Stock Pledge, dated August 2007, among American Consolidated Technologies, LLC, RADS, PC Oncology Professionals and Michael J. Katin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.64 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.65		Transition Agreement and Stock Pledge, dated August 2007, among Phoenix Management Company, LLC, American Oncologic Associates of Michigan, P.C. and Michael J. Katin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.63 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.66		Transition Agreement and Stock Pledge, dated August 2007, among Phoenix Management Company, LLC, X-Ray Treatment Center, P.C. and Michael J. Katin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.66 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.67		Transition Agreement and Stock Pledge, dated June 1, 2005, among New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., Massachusetts Oncology Services, P.C., Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D. and Michael J. Katin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.67 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.68		Transition Agreement and Stock Pledge, dated September 3, 2003, among California Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., 21st Century Oncology of California, A Medical Corporation and Michael J. Katin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.68 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.69		Transition Agreement and Stock Pledge, dated August 1, 2002, among North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, LLC f/k/a North Carolina Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Associates of Western North Carolina, P.A. and Michael J. Katin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.69 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.70		Healthcare Professional Liability Claims Made and Healthcare General Liability Occurrence Insurance Policy, for the policy period from October 14, 2009 to October 14, 2010, issued by Batan Insurance Company SPC, LTD to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.70 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.71		Excess Physician Professional Liability Insurance Policy, for the policy period from October 14, 2009 to October 14, 2010, issued by Batan Insurance Company SPC, LTD on behalf of RTSI Segregated Portfolio to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.71 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.72		Excess Professional Physician and General Liability Insurance Policy, Claims Made and Reported Coverage, for the policy period from October 14, 2009 to October 14, 2010, issued by Batan Insurance Company SPC, LTD on behalf of RTSI Segregated Portfolio to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.72 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.73		Physician Professional Liability Insurance Policy, the policy period from October 14, 2009 to October 14, 2010, issued by National Medical Professional Risk Retention Group, Inc. to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc./21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.73 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.74		Executive Employment Agreement, dated effective as of February 21, 2008, between Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and James H. Rubenstein, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.77 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.+
	10.75		Executive Employment Agreement, dated effective as of February 21, 2008, as amended by that certain Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement, dated December 15, 2008 (incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.78 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010) and Second Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement, dated February 2, 2011, between Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Norton Travis, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.78 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on March 11, 2011.+
	10.76		Executive Employment Agreement, dated effective as of February 21, 2008, between Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Howard Sheridan, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.79 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.+
	10.77		Physician Employment Agreement, dated effective as of July 1, 2003, as amended by that certain Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, dated January 1, 2006, Second Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, dated October 1, 2006, and Third Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, dated January 1, 2007, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc. and Constantine A. Mantz, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.80 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.+
	10.78		Physician Employment Agreement, dated effective as of January 1, 2002, as amended by that certain First Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, dated effective as of July 1, 2002, Second Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, dated effective as of March 24, 2007, and Third Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, dated effective as of November 11, 2009, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc. and Eduardo Fernandez, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.81 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.+
	10.79		Physician Employment Agreement, dated February 21, 2008, as amended by that certain Amendment to Physician Employment Agreement, dated February 1, 2010, between James H. Rubenstein, M.D. and 21st Century Oncology, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.82 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.+
	10.80		Physician Sharing Agreement, dated effective as of August 1, 2003, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC f/k/a 21st Century Oncology, Inc. and Radiation Therapy Associates of Western North Carolina, P.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.83 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.81		Personal and Services Agreement, dated effective as of December 1, 2004, between Imaging Initiatives, Inc and 21st Century Oncology, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.84 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.82		Business Operations and Support Agreement, dated July 20, 1999, as amended by that certain Amendment to Business Operations and Support Agreement, dated November 15, 2006, by and between Phoenix Management Company, LLC and X-Ray Treatment Center, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.85 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.83		Business Operations and Support Agreement, dated August 19, 2000, as amended by that certain Amendment to Business Operations and Support Agreement, dated November 15, 2006, by and between American Consolidated Technologies, LLC and RADS, P.C. Oncology Professionals, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.86 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.84		Business Operations and Support Agreement, dated August 19, 2000, as amended by that certain Amendment to Business Operations and Support Agreement, dated November 15, 2006, by and between Phoenix Management Company, LLC, as successor by merger of Pontiac Investment Associates, a Michigan Partnership and American Oncologic Associates of Michigan, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.87 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.85		Physician Sharing Agreement, dated as of October 1, 2006, between Katin Radiation Therapy, P.A. and 21st Century Oncology of Harford County, Maryland, LLC, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.88 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.86		Radiation Therapy Services Agreement, dated effective as of February 1, 2007, between Roger Williams Radiation Therapy, LLC and Massachusetts Oncology Services, P.C., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.89 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.87		Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC, dated March 25, 2008, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.90 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.88		Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.91 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.89		Supplement No. 1, dated as of June 6, 2008, between Jacksonville Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.92 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.90		Supplement No. 2, dated as of April 22, 2010, between Phoenix Management Company, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.93 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.91		Supplement No. 3, dated as of June 24, 2010, between Carolina Regional Cancer Center, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.94 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.92		Supplement No. 4, dated as of June 24, 2010, between Atlantic Urology Clinics, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (as successor to Wachovia Bank, National Association), to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.95 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.93		Supplement No. 5, dated as of September 30, 2010, between Derm-Rad Investment Company, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.96 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.94		Supplement No. 6, dated as of September 30, 2010, between 21st Century Oncology of Pennsylvania, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.97 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.95		Supplement No. 7, dated as of September 30, 2010, between Gettysburg Radiation, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.98 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.96		Supplement No. 8, dated as of September 30, 2010, between Carolina Radiation and Cancer Treatment Center, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.99 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.97		Supplement No. 9, dated as of September 30, 2010, between 21st Century Oncology of Kentucky, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.100 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.98		Supplement No. 10, dated as of September 30, 2010, between New England Radiation Therapy Management Services, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.101 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.99		Supplement No. 11, dated as of September 30, 2010, between Radiation Therapy School for Radiation Therapy Technology, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.102 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.100		Form of Indemnification Agreement (Directors and/or Officers), incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.103 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.+
	10.101		Amendment No. 1, dated as of November 24, 2010, to the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC, dated March 25, 2008, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.104 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on November 24, 2010.
	10.102		Commitment Letter, dated January 10, 2011, by and between DDJ Capital Management, LLC and Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.105 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s 8-K filing on January 24, 2011.
	10.103		Amended and Restated Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC 2008 Unit Award Plan, adopted on February 21, 2008, as amended and restated on March 1, 2011, incorporated herein be reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 4, 2011.
	10.104		Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2011, by and among Radiation Therapy Services International, Inc., Main Film B.V., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC, Alejandro Dosoretz, and Claudia Elena Kaplan Browntein de Dosoretz, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	10.105		Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2011, by and among Radiation Therapy Services International, Inc., Main Film B.V., Bernardo Dosoretz, and Eduardo Chehtman, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	10.106		Membership Interest Purchase Agreement, dated as of March 1, 2011, by and among Radiation Therapy Services International, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC, Bernardo Dosoretz and Eduardo Chehtman, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	10.107		Contribution Agreement, dated March 1, 2011, by and between Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC and Alejandro Dosoretz, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.108		Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 1, 2011, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., the guarantors party thereto and the purchasers named in Schedule II thereto, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	10.109		Registration Rights Agreement, dated March 1, 2011, by and among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., the guarantors party thereto and Bernardo Dosoretz, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 7, 2011.
	10.110		Amendment No. 1, dated as of November 24, 2010, to the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 4, 2011.
	10.111		Amendment No. 2 to the Second Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 4, 2011
	10.112		Unit Repurchase Agreement, dated March 1, 2011, between Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC and Daniel E. Dosoretz, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 4, 2011
	10.113		Supplement No. 12, dated as of March 31, 2011 between Aurora Technology Development, LLC and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.113 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on April 1, 2011.
	10.114		Amendment Agreement, dated as of September 29, 2011, among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (as successor to RTS Merger Co., Inc.), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the Subsidiaries of the Borrower identified as "Subsidiary Guarantors" on the signature pages thereto, the Lenders signatory thereto and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, in its capacity as administrative agent for the Lenders, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 3, 2011.
	10.115		Incremental Amendment, dated as of September 30, 2011, among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., a Florida corporation (as successor to RTS Merger Co., Inc.), Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the Subsidiaries identified as "Subsidiary Guarantors" on the signature pages thereto, SunTrust Bank, as the incremental revolving lender, and Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, in its capacity as administrative agent for the Lenders, incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on October 3, 2011.
	10.116		Supplement No. 13, dated as of September 29, 2011, between 21st Century Oncology Services, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.119 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2012.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.117		Supplement No. 14, dated as of February 2, 2012, between Goldsboro Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., to the Guaranty and Collateral Agreement, dated as of February 21, 2008, among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., certain subsidiaries of Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. listed therein and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.120 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2012.
	10.118		Executive Employment Agreement, dated March 1, 2011, between Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Joseph M. Garcia, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc's Current Report on Form 8-K filed on March 4, 2011., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.49 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2012.
	10.119		Master Lease #3, dated as of December 12, 2011, between Theriac Rollup II, LLC and its wholly-owned subsidiaries as Landlord and 21st Century Oncology of Alabama, LLC, West Virginia Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and 21st Century Oncology, LLC, collectively as Tenant for certain facilities, as guaranteed by Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.122 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K filed on March 22, 2012.
	10.120		Asset Purchase Agreement, dated March 30, 2012 between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and Lakewood Ranch Oncology Center, LLC, Asset Purchase Agreement, dated March 30, 2012, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and Urology Partners, P.A., Asset Purchase Agreement, dated March 30, 2012, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and Florida Urology Specialists, P.A., Goodwill Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated March 30, 2012, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and Joseph Bilik, M.D., Goodwill Purchase Agreement and Sale, dated March 30, 2012, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and Matthew J. Perry, M.D., Goodwill Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated March 30, 2012, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and William J. Tingle, M.D., Goodwill Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated March 30, 2012, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and Thomas H. Williams, M.D., and Goodwill Purchase and Sale Agreement, dated March 30, 2012, between 21st Century Oncology, LLC and Tracey B. Gapin, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s' Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q filed on May 15, 2012.
	10.121		Credit Agreement, dated as of May 10, 2012, among Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., the lenders party thereto from time to time, Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, as administrative agent and collateral agent and the other parties thereto, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on May 14, 2012.
	10.122		Intercreditor Agreement, dated as of May 10, 2012, among Wells Fargo Bank, National Association Wilmington Trust, National Association and each collateral agent from time to time party thereto, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.126 to Amendment No. 1 to Radiation Therapy Services, Inc.'s Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed on June 15, 2012.
	10.123		Third Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement of Radiation Therapy Investments, LLC, dated as of June 11, 2012, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2012.
	10.124		Amendment No. 1 to the Second Amended and Restated Securityholders Agreement, dated as of June 11, 2012, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2012.

Exhibit Number			Description

	10.125		Amended and Restated Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of June 11, 2012, by and among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Daniel E. Dosoretz, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2012.+
	10.126		Amended and Restated Physician Employment Agreement, dated as of June 11, 2012, by and between 21st Century Oncology, Inc. and Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2012.+
	10.127		Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2012, by and among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Bryan J. Carey, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.5 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2012.+
	10.128		First Amendment to Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of June 11, 2012, by and between Joseph Garcia and Radiation Therapy Services, Inc., incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.6 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2012.+
	10.129		Amendment No. 3 to Executive Employment Agreement, dated as of June 11, 2012, by and among Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc., Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and Norton Travis, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 10.7 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Current Report on Form 8-K filed on June 15, 2012.+
	12.1		Statement Re: Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.
	14.1		Code of Ethics, incorporated herein by reference to Exhibit 14.1 to Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.'s Form 10-K filed on March 11, 2011.
	21.1		Subsidiaries of Registrant.
	31.1		Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	31.2		Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	32.1		Certification of Principal Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
	32.2		Certification of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
	101		The following financial information from Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, formatted in Extensible Business Reporting Language (XBRL): (i) the Consolidated Balance Sheet at December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011 (ii) the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (iii) the Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (iv) the Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010 (v) Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements.


(Mark One)
ý		ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012
or
o		TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from to


Delaware (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization)		26-1747745 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
2270 Colonial Boulevard Fort Myers, Florida (Address Of Principal Executive Offices)		33907 (Zip Code)


Large accelerated filer o		Accelerated filer o		Non-Accelerated filer ý (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting Company o

	Years Ended December 31,							Years Ended December 31,

International	2010*		2011*		% Change			2011*		2012		% Change
Number of new cases
2-D cases		5,646		5,411					5,411		4,857
3-D cases		6,010		6,888					6,888		8,901
IMRT / IGRT cases		1,047		1,478					1,478		1,471

Total		12,703		13,777		8.5	%		13,777		15,229		10.5	%

		Requirement at December 31, 2012			Level at December 31, 2012

Maximum permitted first lien leverage ratio			<1.25 to 1.00			0.22 to 1.00


PART I
Item 1.	Business	4
Item 1A.	Risk Factors	44
Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	64
Item 2.	Properties	64
Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	64
Item 4.	Mine Safety Disclosures	64
PART II
Item 5.	Market for Registrant's Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	65
Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	67
Item 7.	Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	69
Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	106
Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	108
Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	108
Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	109
Item 9B.	Other Information	110
PART III
Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	112
Item 11.	Executive Compensation	121
Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	151
Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Party Transactions, and Directors Independence	153
Item 14.	Principal Accounting Fees and Services	159
PART IV
Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	160
Index to Consolidated and Combined Financial Statements		F-1
SIGNATURES
EXHIBIT INDEX

Treatment Center		Professional	Technical	Administrative

Westchester/Bronx—New York
Northern Westchester(1)	2005		ü	ü
Mohawk Valley—New York
Utica(1)	1998	ü	ü	ü
Rome(1)	1999	ü	ü	ü
Eastern North Carolina
Kinston(2)	2007	ü
Kentucky
London, Kentucky	2011	ü	ü	ü

Dates	Title of Securities		Repurchase From	Consideration

December 31, 2012	Non-voting preferred equity units	94	Key Employee	$	44,595
	Voting Class A equity units	1,854	Key Employee	$	8,454

	Year Ended December 31,

Payer (Domestic U.S.)	2010			2011			2012
Medicare		44.6	%		44.9	%		42.6	%
Commercial		50.9			50.9			53.6
Medicaid		3.0			2.8			2.7
Self pay		1.5			1.4			1.1

Total net patient service revenue		100.0	%		100.0	%		100.0	%

	Payments Due by Period

Contractual Cash Obligations	Total		Less Than 1 Year		2 - 3 Years		4 - 5 Years		After 5 Years
	(in thousands)
Senior secured credit agreement(1)	$	38,389	$	8,147	$	16,293	$	13,949	$	—
Senior subordinated notes(2)		543,446		37,155		74,309		431,982		—
Senior secured second lien notes(3)		487,193		31,063		62,125		394,005		—
Other notes and capital leases(4)		35,587		12,905		15,569		5,258		1,855
Operating lease obligations(5)		413,366		38,254		72,080		66,290		236,742
Finance obligations(6)		24,432		1,745		4,230		4,068		14,389

Total contractual cash obligations	$	1,542,413	$	129,269	$	244,606	$	915,552	$	252,986

Name		Position

Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.	60	Chief Executive Officer and Director
Bryan J. Carey	52	Vice Chairman, Chief Financial Officer and Director
Joseph Biscardi	44	Controller and Chief Accounting Officer
James L. Elrod, Jr.	58	President and Director
Robert L. Rosner	53	Director
Erin L. Russell	39	Vice President and Director
James H. Rubenstein, M.D.	58	Director
Howard M. Sheridan, M.D.	68	Director

Type of Financial Performance Metric	Minimum Target Level of Achievement		On-Target Level of Achievement		Maximum Target Level of Achievement		Actual Level of Achievement		Level of Target Achieved

PF Adjusted EBITDA	$	110.0	$	120.0	$	125.0	$	106.3	Not Achieved
Net Debt	$	748.0	$	740.0	$	—	$	755.2	Not Achieved
Specified Objectives									Achieved

Name

Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D., President and Chief Executive Officer	70,000	5,000	100
Joseph M. Garcia, Chief Operating Officer	136,364	14,815	—
Constantine A. Mantz, M.D., Chief Medical Officer	45,455	5,556	—
Norton L. Travis, Executive Vice President and General Counsel	127,273	13,333	—
Bryan J. Carey, Vice Chairman and Chief Financial Officer	145,455	16,667	—

	Payout Levels Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards(1)

	Minimum ($)		Target ($)		Maximum ($)
Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.		300,000		1,500,000		3,000,000
Joseph M. Garcia.		48,000		240,000		480,000
Constantine A. Mantz, M.D.		—		—		—
Norton L. Travis		60,000		300,000		600,000
Bryan J. Carey		80,750		403,750		807,500

Event

For cause or resignation without good reason	—	—	—	—	—
Involuntary termination without cause, resignation for good reason	—	4,033,333	350,000	14,400	4,397,733
Voluntary resignation	—	—	—	—	—
Disability or death(2)	350,000	—	—	—	350,000

Event

For cause or resignation without good reason	—	—	—	—	—
Involuntary termination without cause, resignation for good reason	—	592,000	192,000	—	784,000
Voluntary resignation	—	—	—	—	—
Disability or death(2)	192,000	—	—	—	192,000

Event

For cause or resignation without good reason	—	—	—	—	—
Involuntary termination without cause, resignation for good reason	—	1,800,000	—	—	1,800,000
Voluntary resignation	—	—	—	—	—
Disability or death(1)	—	—	—	—	—

Event

For cause or resignation without good reason	—	—	—	—	—
Involuntary termination without cause, resignation for good reason	—	1,450,000	250,000	17,160	1,717,160
Voluntary resignation	—	—	—	—	—
Disability or death(1)	475,000	—	—	—	475,000



Howard M. Sheridan, M.D.	—	—		—	305,402	(2)	305,402
James H. Rubenstein, M.D(1).	—	6,036	(3)	—	677,277	(3)	683,313

			Payout Levels Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards						Payout Levels Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards

	Grant Date(1)		Minimum ($)		Target ($)		Maximum ($)		Minimum ($)		Target ($)		Maximum ($)
Howard M. Sheridan, M.D.		—		—		—		—		—		—		—	—
James H. Rubenstein, M.D.		—		80,000		400,000		800,000		—		—		—	—

	Payout Levels Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards

	Grant Date(1)		Target (#)		Unit Class		Grant Date Fair Value of Equity Awards($)(2)		All Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units(#)
Howard M. Sheridan, M.D.		—		—		—		—		—
James H. Rubenstein, M.D.		6/11/12		1,818		Class MEP		6,036		—

	Stock Awards

							Equity Incentive Plan Awards
	Number of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested(#)				Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested($)(c)		Number of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested(#)			Market or Payout Value of Unearned Shares, Units or Other Rights That Have Not Vested($)(c)
Howard M. Sheridan, M.D.		—	—			—		—	—		—
James H. Rubenstein, M.D.		607	Class MEP Units(a	)	$	565		—	—		—

Type of Fees	2012		2011

Audit fees	$	1,000,000	$	1,113,000
Audit-related fees		173,000		15,000
Tax fees		171,000		425,000
All other		25,500		—

Total	$	1,369,500	$	1,553,000

		Page

Radiation Therapy Services Holdings, Inc.
*Audited Consolidated Financial Statements*
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm—Deloitte & Touche LLP			F-2
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm—Ernst & Young LLP			F-3
Consolidated Financial Statements:
Consolidated Balance Sheets at December 31, 2012 and 2011			F-4
Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Loss for the Years Ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010			F-5
Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows for the Years Ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010			F-6
Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity for the Years Ended December 31, 2012, 2011 and 2010			F-8
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements			F-9
Combined operating entities of Medical Developers, LLC
Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm			F-81

Foreign Currency Derivative Agreements (in thousands):	Notional Amount		Maturity Date	Premium Amount		Fair Value

Foreign currency derivative Argentine Peso to U.S. dollar	$	3,750	March 27, 2013		292		104
Foreign currency derivative Argentine Peso to U.S. dollar		1,250	June 28, 2013		140		25
Foreign currency derivative Argentine Peso to U.S. dollar		1,250	September 30, 2013		111		85
Foreign currency derivative Argentine Peso to U.S. dollar		1,250	December 31, 2013		127		105

	$	7,500		$	670	$	319

(in thousands):	December 31, 2012		December 31, 2011

Parts and supplies	$	1,551	$	1,481
Medical drugs		2,346		2,827

	$	3,897	$	4,308


Buildings and leasehold improvements		10 - 50 years
Office, computer, and telephone equipment		3 - 10 years
Medical and medical testing equipment		5 - 10 years
Automobiles and vans		5 years

(in thousands):	December 31, 2012			December 31, 2011

Land	$	1,795		$	1,770
Buildings and leasehold improvements		63,383			56,642
Office, computer, and telephone equipment		81,280			63,485
Medical and medical testing equipment		231,552			236,041
Automobiles and vans		1,465			1,450

		379,475			359,388
Less accumulated depreciation		(164,342	)		(126,742	)

		215,133			232,646
Construction-in-progress		7,121			3,946
Foreign currency translation		(1,204	)		(181	)

	$	221,050		$	236,411

(in thousands):	December 31, 2012			December 31, 2011

Medical equipment	$	30,383		$	44,495
Software		855			812
Less: accumulated amortization		(5,545	)		(12,854	)

	$	25,693		$	32,453

(in thousands):	North East U.S.		California		South West U.S.		Florida East Coast		Northwest Florida		Southwest Florida		Total

Goodwill	$	13,412	$	10,236	$	45,127	$	32,963	$	40,026	$	84,751	$	226,515

Trade name	$	258	$	982	$	4,049	$	—	$	969	$	2,152	$	8,410

(in thousands):	North East U.S.		Mid East U.S.		Central South East U.S.		California		South West U.S.		Florida East Coast		Northwest Florida		Southwest Florida		Total

Goodwill	$	37,940	$	—	$	—	$	14,664	$	19,144	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	71,748

Trade name	$	5,245	$	8,810	$	6,755	$	2,560	$	3,706	$	4,440	$	5,728	$	12,590	$	49,834

	December 31, 2012

(in thousands): Intangible assets subject to amortization	Gross		Impairment loss		Accumulated Amortization			Foreign Currency Translation			Net
Noncompete agreements	$	64,532	$	—	$	(47,328	)		(25	)	$	17,179
Hospital Contracts		19,994		—		(1,986	)		(2,648	)		15,360
Trade names		4,638		—		(4,638	)		—			—
Intangible assets not subject to amortization (indefinite-lived)
Trade names		2,682		—		—			(177	)		2,505

Balance, end of period	$	91,846	$	—	$	(53,952	)		(2,850	)	$	35,044


Cash	$	47,500
Seller financing note		16,047
Company's issuance of equity		16,250
Contingent earn-out		2,340
Issuance of real estate		561

Total consideration transferred		82,698
Net identifiable assets acquired		15,527

Goodwill	$	67,171


Trade name (indefinite life)	$	1,750
Non-compete agreement (5 year life)		2,000
Hospital contract arrangements (18.5 year life)		19,850

	$	23,600

Description:

Fiscal Year 2010	(3.4	)	(14.2	)			(17.6	)
Fiscal Year 2011	(17.6	)	(28.8	)	0.9		(45.5	)
Fiscal Year 2012	(45.5	)	(35.8	)	(1.0	)	(82.3	)