Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2012
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Omnicare continuously evaluates contingencies based upon the best available information. The Company believes that liabilities have been recorded to the extent necessary in cases where the outcome is considered probable and reasonably estimable. To the extent that resolution of contingencies results in amounts that vary from the Company’s recorded liabilities, future earnings will be charged or credited accordingly. On October 19, 2012, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Lesa Martino Whalen v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 8:11-cv-2297, was unsealed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The case had been filed on October 11, 2011 under seal in that court. The U.S. Department of Justice notified the court that it has declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Lesa Martino Whalen as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company failed to comply with Florida pharmacy regulations. The Company has not been served with the complaint in this action. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action, if pursued. On October 5, 2011, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Donald Gale v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-0127, was served on the Company. The case had been filed on January 19, 2010 under seal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint was unsealed by the Court on June 9, 2011 after the U.S. Department of Justice notified the court that it has declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Donald Gale as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company provided certain customer facilities with discounts and other forms of remuneration in return for referrals of business in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and offered pricing terms in violation of the "most favored customer" pricing laws of various state Medicaid plans. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 27, 2012. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Allegations concerning pricing and certain discounts remain in the case. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On August 4, 2011, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States of America ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Omnicare, Inc. and Neighborcare, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-0962, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, was unsealed by the Court. The U.S. Department of Justice has declined to intervene in this action. The Company was served with the complaint on November 23, 2011. The complaint was brought by Fox Rx, Inc. as a qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company billed Medicare Part D for medically unnecessary antipsychotic drugs, increased the dispensing fees by artificially shortening the supply of prescribed medication, submitted claims for antipsychotic drugs without complying with Fox Rx, Inc.’s prior approval requirements, and waived or failed to collect copayments from patients to induce the use of prescription drugs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 21, 2011. On August 29, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, though granting leave to replead certain counts. On September 18, 2012, Relator filed its Third Amended Complaint reasserting its claims regarding copayments and antipsychotic drugs. On October 2 and 5, 2012, the Company filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10, 2007 through August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal securities law in connection with alleged false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations. On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Plaintiffs allege substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are alleged in the Ansfield complaint. Both complaints seek unspecified money damages. The Court has appointed lead counsel and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2012. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 16, 2012. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously. On October 29, 2010, a qui tam complaint entitled United States ex rel. Banigan and Templin, et al. v. Organon USA, Inc., Omnicare, Inc. and Pharmerica, Inc., Civil No. 07-12153-RWZ, that had been filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Boston, Massachusetts, was ordered unsealed by the court. The complaint was brought by James Banigan and Richard Templin, former employees of Organon, as private party qui tam relators on behalf of the federal government and several state and local governments. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that Organon USA, Inc. and its affiliates paid the Company and several other long-term care pharmacies rebates, post-purchase discounts and other forms of remuneration in return for purchasing pharmaceuticals from Organon and taking steps to increase the purchase of Organon's drugs in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it has declined to intervene in this action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 7, 2011. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss on June 1, 2012. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on July 2, 2012. The Court denied this motion on September 7, 2012. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. The Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") investigated alleged errors and deficiencies in paperwork requirements for controlled substance dispensing at several of the Company's pharmacies in Ohio and the United States Attorney's Office, Northern District of Ohio ("AUSA"), conducted an investigation relating to this matter. The AUSA conducted a criminal investigation of several current and former employees in connection with the DEA audits. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarters ended December 31 and June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. On May 10, 2012, the Company agreed to a nationwide settlement of all matters subject to the DEA investigation in exchange for a payment of $50 million. The settlement included a release of all Omnicare owned pharmacies, all Omnicare joint venture pharmacies, and all present and former directors, officers, and employees from any civil penalty claim, or any administrative action, including denial, suspension, or revocation of any DEA registration, related to the subject matter of the investigation. The Company and current and former employees are no longer the subject of a criminal investigation by the AUSA in connection with the DEA audits. The United States Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia, is investigating whether the Company's activities in connection with agreements it had with the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Depakote violated the False Claims Act or the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Company is cooperating with this investigation and believes that it has complied with applicable laws and regulations with respect to this matter. On April 14, 2010, a purported shareholder derivative action, entitled Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Gemunder, et al., Case No. 10-CI-01212, was filed in Kentucky State Court, against members of the Board and certain current and former officers of the Company, individually, purporting to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets arising out of alleged violations of federal and state laws prohibiting the payment of illegal kickbacks and the submission of false claims in connection with the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs. Plaintiff alleges that the Board and senior management caused the company to violate these laws, which has resulted in over $100 million in fines and penalties paid by Omnicare and exposed the Company and certain individual defendants to potential civil and criminal liability. On April 27, 2011 the court entered an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to make a pre-suit demand and failure to state a claim. Defendants filed a notice of appeal from the decision in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and plaintiff moved to dismiss that appeal on the grounds that the order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss is not subject to an immediate appeal under Kentucky law. On October 6, 2011, the Kentucky Court of Appeals granted plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that the appeal was premature. The case is now in the discovery stage. The individual defendants have denied all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the claims against them to be completely without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves in this action. On January 8, 2010, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Resnick and Nehls v. Omnicare, Inc., Morris Esformes, Phillip Esformes and Lancaster Ltd. d/b/a Lancaster Health Group, No. 1:07cv5777, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois was unsealed by the court. The U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Illinois have notified the court that they have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Adam Resnick and Maureen Nehls as private party “qui tam relators” on behalf of the federal government and two state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act and certain state statutes based on allegations that Omnicare acquired certain institutional pharmacies at above-market rates in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and applicable state statutes. On December 1, 2010, Resnick filed a motion to withdraw as a relator, which the court granted on December 14, 2010. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On June 11, 2010, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Stone v. Omnicare Inc., No. 1:09cv4319, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois was unsealed by the court. The U.S. Department of Justice and the various states named in the complaint have notified the court that they have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by John Stone, the Company’s former Vice President of Internal Audit, as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act and certain state statutes based on allegations that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement for certain ancillary services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations, submitted claims for reimbursement from newly acquired pharmacies that were in violation of certain Medicaid and Medicare regulations, violated certain FDA regulations regarding the storage and handling of a particular drug, and violated certain Medicaid billing regulations relating to usual and customary charges. Relator also asserts against the Company a retaliatory discharge claim under the False Claims Act. Following the court's order dismissing some claims with prejudice, on September 15, 2011, Relator filed an Amended Complaint. He repeated his claim that the Company submitted false claims for certain ancillary services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations. Relator also asserted a claim in the Amended Complaint that the Company submitted false claims to the Nevada Medicaid program for a particular drug. Relator repeated his retaliatory discharge claim. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 15, 2011. The Relator filed a response in opposition to that motion. On April 24, 2012, the court granted Omnicare's motion to dismiss without prejudice all claims except the retaliatory discharge claim. On May 29, 2012, Relator filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2012. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On November 19, 2010, the Company was served with a second amended qui tam complaint entitled United States ex rel. Rostholder v. Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare Distribution Center, LLC f/k/a Heartland Repack Services LLC, No. CCB-07-1283, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland in May 2007. The U.S. Department of Justice notified the court on April 22, 2009 that it declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Barry Rostholder as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state and local governments. The action, in general, alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement for drugs that were repackaged at its Heartland repackaging facility in violation of certain FDA regulations. These allegations arise from the previously disclosed issues experienced by the Company at its Heartland repackaging facility, which suspended operations in 2006. On September 30, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety, which has now been fully briefed. The Court held oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss on June 28, 2012. On August 14, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion with prejudice as to the relator and without prejudice as to the United States. Relator filed an amended motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2012. On October 19, 2012, the Court denied relator's motion to reconsider. The Company believes that the claims in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action if pursued. As part of the previously disclosed civil settlement agreement entered into by the Company with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts in November 2009, the Company also entered into an amended and restated corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General with a term of five years from November 2, 2009. Pursuant to the CIA, the Company is required, among other things, to (i) create procedures designed to ensure that each existing, new or renewed arrangement with any actual or potential source of health care business or referrals to Omnicare or any actual or potential recipient of health care business or referrals from Omnicare does not violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. (§) 1320a-7b(b) or related regulations, directives and guidance, including creating and maintaining a database of such arrangements; (ii) retain an independent review organization to review the Company’s compliance with the terms of the CIA and report to OIG regarding that compliance; and (iii) provide training for certain Company employees as to the Company’s requirements under the CIA. The requirements of the Company’s prior corporate integrity agreement obligating the Company to create and maintain procedures designed to ensure that all therapeutic interchange programs are developed and implemented by Omnicare consistent with the CIA and federal and state laws for obtaining prior authorization from the prescriber before making a therapeutic interchange of a drug and to maintain procedures for the accurate preparation and submission of claims for federal health care program beneficiaries in hospice programs, have been incorporated into the amended and restated CIA without modification. The requirements of the CIA have resulted in increased costs to maintain the Company’s compliance program and greater scrutiny by federal regulatory authorities. Violations of the corporate integrity agreement could subject the Company to significant monetary penalties. Consistent with the CIA, the Company is reviewing its contracts to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. As a result of this review, pricing under certain of its consultant pharmacist services contracts have been increased and will continue to be increased, and these price increases have resulted and may continue to result in the loss of certain contracts. In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in December 2005. The complaint contained claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements) by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company’s business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. On July 14, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration statement contained false and misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation of the federal anti-kickback law in connection with three of Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services. On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket. On March 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On February 13, 2006, two substantially similar shareholder derivative actions, entitled Isak v. Gemunder, et al., Case No. 06-CI-390, and Fragnoli v. Hutton, et al., Case No. 06-CI-389, were filed in Kentucky State Circuit Court, Kenton Circuit, against the members of Omnicare’s board of directors, individually, purporting to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising out of the Company’s alleged violations of federal and state health care laws based upon the same purportedly improper generic drug substitution that is the subject of the federal purported class action lawsuits. The complaints seek, among other things, damages, restitution and injunctive relief. The Isak and Fragnoli actions were later consolidated by agreement of the parties. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. During 2006, the Company experienced certain quality control and product recall issues, as well as fire damage, at one of its repackaging facilities. In connection with the resolution of these matters (the “Repack Matters”) the Company decided not to reopen this facility. The Company has been cooperating with federal and state officials who have been conducting investigations relating to the Repack Matters and certain billing issues. The Company believes all investigations into the Repack Matters have been closed. The three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 included charges of $4.9 million and $38.2 million, respectively, and approximately $6.7 million and $32.6 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, reflected in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income, primarily for estimated litigation and other related settlements and associated professional expenses for resolution of certain regulatory matters with the federal government and various states and a qui tam lawsuit, certain large customer disputes, the investigation by the federal government and certain states relating to drug substitutions and costs associated with the purported class and derivative actions against the Company. In connection with Omnicare’s participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare programs, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries and investigations by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject. Further, the Company maintains a compliance program which establishes certain routine periodic monitoring of the accuracy of the Company’s billing systems and other regulatory compliance matters and encourages the reporting of errors and inaccuracies. As a result of the compliance program, Omnicare has made, and will continue to make, disclosures to the applicable governmental agencies of amounts, if any, determined to represent over-payments from the respective programs and, where applicable, those amounts, as well as any amounts relating to certain inspections, audits, inquiries and investigations activity are included in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income. Although the Company cannot know the ultimate outcome of the matters described in the preceding paragraphs other than as disclosed, there can be no assurance that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows or, in the case of other billing matters, that these matters will be resolved in an amount that would not exceed the amount of the pretax charges previously recorded by the Company. As part of its ongoing operations, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries, investigations and similar actions by third parties, as well as governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject. Further, under the federal False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. The Company from time to time receives government inquiries from federal and state agencies regarding compliance with various healthcare laws. In addition, the Company is also involved in various legal actions arising in the normal course of business. At any point in time, the Company is in varying stages of discussions on these matters. Omnicare records accruals for such contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters are continuously being evaluated and, in many cases, are being contested by the Company and the outcome is not predictable. The inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be exacerbated by various factors from time to time, including: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. Consequently, unless stated otherwise, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters described above. Further, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. The Company indemnifies the directors and officers of the Company for certain liabilities that might arise from the performance of their job responsibilities for the Company. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the Company enters into contracts that contain a variety of representations and warranties and which provide general indemnifications. The Company’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this involves the resolution of claims made, or future claims that may be made, against the Company, its directors and/or officers, the outcomes of which is unknown and not currently predictable. Accordingly, no liabilities have been recorded for the indemnifications.

Commitments and Contingencies

Omnicare continuously evaluates contingencies based upon the best available information. The Company believes that liabilities have been recorded to the extent necessary in cases where the outcome is considered probable and reasonably estimable. To the extent that resolution of contingencies results in amounts that vary from the Company’s recorded liabilities, future earnings will be charged or credited accordingly.

On October 19, 2012, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Lesa Martino Whalen v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 8:11-cv-2297, was unsealed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division. The case had been filed on October 11, 2011 under seal in that court. The U.S. Department of Justice notified the court that it has declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Lesa Martino Whalen as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company failed to comply with Florida pharmacy regulations. The Company has not been served with the complaint in this action. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action, if pursued.

On October 5, 2011, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Donald Gale v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 1:10-cv-0127, was served on the Company. The case had been filed on January 19, 2010 under seal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division. The complaint was unsealed by the Court on June 9, 2011 after the U.S. Department of Justice notified the court that it has declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Donald Gale as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company provided certain customer facilities with discounts and other forms of remuneration in return for referrals of business in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, and offered pricing terms in violation of the "most favored customer" pricing laws of various state Medicaid plans. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 27, 2012. On September 26, 2012, the Court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. Allegations concerning pricing and certain discounts remain in the case. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On August 4, 2011, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States of America ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Omnicare, Inc. and Neighborcare, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-0962, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, was unsealed by the Court. The U.S. Department of Justice has declined to intervene in this action. The Company was served with the complaint on November 23, 2011. The complaint was brought by Fox Rx, Inc. as a qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company billed Medicare Part D for medically unnecessary antipsychotic drugs, increased the dispensing fees by artificially shortening the supply of prescribed medication, submitted claims for antipsychotic drugs without complying with Fox Rx, Inc.’s prior approval requirements, and waived or failed to collect copayments from patients to induce the use of prescription drugs. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on December 21, 2011. On August 29, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss, though granting leave to replead certain counts. On September 18, 2012, Relator filed its Third Amended Complaint reasserting its claims regarding copayments and antipsychotic drugs. On October 2 and 5, 2012, the Company filed motions to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On August 24, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Ansfield v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. was filed on behalf of a putative class of all purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 10, 2007 through August 5, 2010 against the Company and certain of its current and former officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal securities law in connection with alleged false and misleading statements with respect to the Company's compliance with federal and state Medicare and Medicaid laws and regulations. On October 21, 2011, a class action complaint entitled Jacksonville Police & Fire Pension Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. was filed on behalf of the same putative class of purchasers as is referenced in the Ansfield complaint, against the Company and certain of its current and former officers, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Plaintiffs allege substantially the same violations of federal securities law as are alleged in the Ansfield complaint. Both complaints seek unspecified money damages. The Court has appointed lead counsel and a consolidated amended complaint was filed on May 11, 2012. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on July 16, 2012. The Company believes that the claims asserted are without merit and intends to defend against them vigorously.

On October 29, 2010, a qui tam complaint entitled United States ex rel. Banigan and Templin, et al. v. Organon USA, Inc., Omnicare, Inc. and Pharmerica, Inc., Civil No. 07-12153-RWZ, that had been filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Boston, Massachusetts, was ordered unsealed by the court. The complaint was brought by James Banigan and Richard Templin, former employees of Organon, as private party qui tam relators on behalf of the federal government and several state and local governments. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that Organon USA, Inc. and its affiliates paid the Company and several other long-term care pharmacies rebates, post-purchase discounts and other forms of remuneration in return for purchasing pharmaceuticals from Organon and taking steps to increase the purchase of Organon's drugs in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it has declined to intervene in this action. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on July 7, 2011. The Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss on June 1, 2012. The Company filed a motion for reconsideration or, in the alternative certification under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) on July 2, 2012. The Court denied this motion on September 7, 2012. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

The Drug Enforcement Administration ("DEA") investigated alleged errors and deficiencies in paperwork requirements for controlled substance dispensing at several of the Company's pharmacies in Ohio and the United States Attorney's Office, Northern District of Ohio ("AUSA"), conducted an investigation relating to this matter. The AUSA conducted a criminal investigation of several current and former employees in connection with the DEA audits. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarters ended December 31 and June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. On May 10, 2012, the Company agreed to a nationwide settlement of all matters subject to the DEA investigation in exchange for a payment of $50 million. The settlement included a release of all Omnicare owned pharmacies, all Omnicare joint venture pharmacies, and all present and former directors, officers, and employees from any civil penalty claim, or any administrative action, including denial, suspension, or revocation of any DEA registration, related to the subject matter of the investigation. The Company and current and former employees are no longer the subject of a criminal investigation by the AUSA in connection with the DEA audits.

The United States Department of Justice, through the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia, is investigating whether the Company's activities in connection with agreements it had with the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Depakote violated the False Claims Act or the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Company is cooperating with this investigation and believes that it has complied with applicable laws and regulations with respect to this matter.

On April 14, 2010, a purported shareholder derivative action, entitled Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust v. Gemunder, et al., Case No. 10-CI-01212, was filed in Kentucky State Court, against members of the Board and certain current and former officers of the Company, individually, purporting to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets arising out of alleged violations of federal and state laws prohibiting the payment of illegal kickbacks and the submission of false claims in connection with the Medicare and Medicaid healthcare programs. Plaintiff alleges that the Board and senior management caused the company to violate these laws, which has resulted in over $100 million in fines and penalties paid by Omnicare and exposed the Company and certain individual defendants to potential civil and criminal liability. On April 27, 2011 the court entered an order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to make a pre-suit demand and failure to state a claim. Defendants filed a notice of appeal from the decision in the Kentucky Court of Appeals, and plaintiff moved to dismiss that appeal on the grounds that the order denying defendants’ motion to dismiss is not subject to an immediate appeal under Kentucky law. On October 6, 2011, the Kentucky Court of Appeals granted plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that the appeal was premature. The case is now in the discovery stage. The individual defendants have denied all allegations of wrongdoing, believe the claims against them to be completely without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves in this action.

On January 8, 2010, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Resnick and Nehls v. Omnicare, Inc., Morris Esformes, Phillip Esformes and Lancaster Ltd. d/b/a Lancaster Health Group, No. 1:07cv5777, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois was unsealed by the court. The U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Illinois have notified the court that they have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Adam Resnick and Maureen Nehls as private party “qui tam relators” on behalf of the federal government and two state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act and certain state statutes based on allegations that Omnicare acquired certain institutional pharmacies at above-market rates in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and applicable state statutes. On December 1, 2010, Resnick filed a motion to withdraw as a relator, which the court granted on December 14, 2010. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarter ended June 30, 2012.

On June 11, 2010, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Stone v. Omnicare Inc., No. 1:09cv4319, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois was unsealed by the court. The U.S. Department of Justice and the various states named in the complaint have notified the court that they have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by John Stone, the Company’s former Vice President of Internal Audit, as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act and certain state statutes based on allegations that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement for certain ancillary services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations, submitted claims for reimbursement from newly acquired pharmacies that were in violation of certain Medicaid and Medicare regulations, violated certain FDA regulations regarding the storage and handling of a particular drug, and violated certain Medicaid billing regulations relating to usual and customary charges. Relator also asserts against the Company a retaliatory discharge claim under the False Claims Act. Following the court's order dismissing some claims with prejudice, on September 15, 2011, Relator filed an Amended Complaint. He repeated his claim that the Company submitted false claims for certain ancillary services that did not conform with Medicare and Medicaid regulations. Relator also asserted a claim in the Amended Complaint that the Company submitted false claims to the Nevada Medicaid program for a particular drug. Relator repeated his retaliatory discharge claim. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 15, 2011. The Relator filed a response in opposition to that motion. On April 24, 2012, the court granted Omnicare's motion to dismiss without prejudice all claims except the retaliatory discharge claim. On May 29, 2012, Relator filed a Second Amended Complaint. The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 28, 2012. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On November 19, 2010, the Company was served with a second amended qui tam complaint entitled United States ex rel. Rostholder v. Omnicare, Inc. and Omnicare Distribution Center, LLC f/k/a Heartland Repack Services LLC, No. CCB-07-1283, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland in May 2007. The U.S. Department of Justice notified the court on April 22, 2009 that it declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Barry Rostholder as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state and local governments. The action, in general, alleges civil violations of the False Claims Act based on allegations that the Company submitted claims for reimbursement for drugs that were repackaged at its Heartland repackaging facility in violation of certain FDA regulations. These allegations arise from the previously disclosed issues experienced by the Company at its Heartland repackaging facility, which suspended operations in 2006. On September 30, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit in its entirety, which has now been fully briefed. The Court held oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss on June 28, 2012. On August 14, 2012, the Court granted the Company's motion with prejudice as to the relator and without prejudice as to the United States. Relator filed an amended motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2012. On October 19, 2012, the Court denied relator's motion to reconsider. The Company believes that the claims in the complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action if pursued.

As part of the previously disclosed civil settlement agreement entered into by the Company with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Massachusetts in November 2009, the Company also entered into an amended and restated corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General with a term of five years from November 2, 2009. Pursuant to the CIA, the Company is required, among other things, to (i) create procedures designed to ensure that each existing, new or renewed arrangement with any actual or potential source of health care business or referrals to Omnicare or any actual or potential recipient of health care business or referrals from Omnicare does not violate the Anti-Kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. (§) 1320a-7b(b) or related regulations, directives and guidance, including creating and maintaining a database of such arrangements; (ii) retain an independent review organization to review the Company’s compliance with the terms of the CIA and report to OIG regarding that compliance; and (iii) provide training for certain Company employees as to the Company’s requirements under the CIA. The requirements of the Company’s prior corporate integrity agreement obligating the Company to create and maintain procedures designed to ensure that all therapeutic interchange programs are developed and implemented by Omnicare consistent with the CIA and federal and state laws for obtaining prior authorization from the prescriber before making a therapeutic interchange of a drug and to maintain procedures for the accurate preparation and submission of claims for federal health care program beneficiaries in hospice programs, have been incorporated into the amended and restated CIA without modification. The requirements of the CIA have resulted in increased costs to maintain the Company’s compliance program and greater scrutiny by federal regulatory authorities. Violations of the corporate integrity agreement could subject the Company to significant monetary penalties. Consistent with the CIA, the Company is reviewing its contracts to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations. As a result of this review, pricing under certain of its consultant pharmacist services contracts have been increased and will continue to be increased, and these price increases have resulted and may continue to result in the loss of certain contracts.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, and were consolidated and entitled Indiana State Dist. Council of Laborers & HOD Carriers Pension & Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc., et al., No. 2:06cv26. The amended consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought their shares in the Company's public offering in December 2005. The complaint contained claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (and Rule 10b-5) and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that Omnicare (i) artificially inflated its earnings (and failed to file GAAP-compliant financial statements) by engaging in improper generic drug substitution, improper revenue recognition and overvaluation of receivables and inventories; (ii) failed to timely disclose its contractual dispute with UnitedHealth Group Inc.; (iii) failed to timely record certain special litigation reserves; and (iv) made other allegedly false and misleading statements about the Company’s business, prospects and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on March 12, 2007, and on October 12, 2007, the court dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On October 21, 2009, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals generally affirmed the district court's dismissal, dismissing plaintiff's claims for violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5. However, the appellate court reversed the dismissal for the claim brought for violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, and returned the case to the district court for further proceedings. On July 14, 2011, the court granted plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint. This complaint asserts a claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of all purchasers of Omnicare common stock in the December 2005 public offering. The new complaint alleges that the 2005 registration statement contained false and misleading statements regarding Omnicare's policy of compliance with all applicable laws and regulations with particular emphasis on allegations of violation of the federal anti-kickback law in connection with three of Omnicare's acquisitions, Omnicare's contracts with two of its suppliers and its provision of pharmacist consultant services. On August 19, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket. On March 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On February 13, 2006, two substantially similar shareholder derivative actions, entitled Isak v. Gemunder, et al., Case No. 06-CI-390, and Fragnoli v. Hutton, et al., Case No. 06-CI-389, were filed in Kentucky State Circuit Court, Kenton Circuit, against the members of Omnicare’s board of directors, individually, purporting to assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets and unjust enrichment arising out of the Company’s alleged violations of federal and state health care laws based upon the same purportedly improper generic drug substitution that is the subject of the federal purported class action lawsuits. The complaints seek, among other things, damages, restitution and injunctive relief. The Isak and Fragnoli actions were later consolidated by agreement of the parties. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

During 2006, the Company experienced certain quality control and product recall issues, as well as fire damage, at one of its repackaging facilities. In connection with the resolution of these matters (the “Repack Matters”) the Company decided not to reopen this facility. The Company has been cooperating with federal and state officials who have been conducting investigations relating to the Repack Matters and certain billing issues. The Company believes all investigations into the Repack Matters have been closed.

The three and nine months ended September 30, 2012 included charges of $4.9 million and $38.2 million, respectively, and approximately $6.7 million and $32.6 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2011, respectively, reflected in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income, primarily for estimated litigation and other related settlements and associated professional expenses for resolution of certain regulatory matters with the federal government and various states and a qui tam lawsuit, certain large customer disputes, the investigation by the federal government and certain states relating to drug substitutions and costs associated with the purported class and derivative actions against the Company. In connection with Omnicare’s participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare programs, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries and investigations by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject. Further, the Company maintains a compliance program which establishes certain routine periodic monitoring of the accuracy of the Company’s billing systems and other regulatory compliance matters and encourages the reporting of errors and inaccuracies. As a result of the compliance program, Omnicare has made, and will continue to make, disclosures to the applicable governmental agencies of amounts, if any, determined to represent over-payments from the respective programs and, where applicable, those amounts, as well as any amounts relating to certain inspections, audits, inquiries and investigations activity are included in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income.

Although the Company cannot know the ultimate outcome of the matters described in the preceding paragraphs other than as disclosed, there can be no assurance that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows or, in the case of other billing matters, that these matters will be resolved in an amount that would not exceed the amount of the pretax charges previously recorded by the Company.

As part of its ongoing operations, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries, investigations and similar actions by third parties, as well as governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject. Further, under the federal False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or “whistleblower,” suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. Some states have adopted similar state whistleblower and false claims provisions. The Company from time to time receives government inquiries from federal and state agencies regarding compliance with various healthcare laws. In addition, the Company is also involved in various legal actions arising in the normal course of business. At any point in time, the Company is in varying stages of discussions on these matters. Omnicare records accruals for such contingencies to the extent that the Company concludes that it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. These matters are continuously being evaluated and, in many cases, are being contested by the Company and the outcome is not predictable. The inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be exacerbated by various factors from time to time, including: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) there are significant facts in dispute; (vi) there are a large number of parties (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) there is a wide range of potential outcomes. Consequently, unless stated otherwise, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of the amounts accrued, if any, can be made at this time regarding the matters described above. Further, there can be no assurance that the ultimate resolution of these matters, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

The Company indemnifies the directors and officers of the Company for certain liabilities that might arise from the performance of their job responsibilities for the Company. Additionally, in the normal course of business, the Company enters into contracts that contain a variety of representations and warranties and which provide general indemnifications. The Company’s maximum exposure under these arrangements is unknown, as this involves the resolution of claims made, or future claims that may be made, against the Company, its directors and/or officers, the outcomes of which is unknown and not currently predictable. Accordingly, no liabilities have been recorded for the indemnifications.