Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
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 March 21, 2014, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Inc., Omnicare, Inc., and NeighborCare, Inc., No. 13-CIV-3779 was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint was filed under seal on June 4, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was brought by Fox Rx., Inc. as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several states. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company entered into rebate arrangements with a manufacturer of generic simvastatin allegedly in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On December 4, 2013, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Raymond Dolan v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint, filed under seal on January 19, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was brought by Raymond Dolan as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and the States of Illinois and North Carolina. The relator filed a First Amended Complaint on February 11, 2014. The relator asserts violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company entered into contracts with certain customer facilities in Illinois that included pricing for pharmaceuticals below Average Wholesale Price as well as other discounted pricing in return for referrals of business, allegedly in violation of the Stark Law, Medicare regulations, and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice notified the court on September 13, 2013 that it declined to intervene. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On November 26, 2013, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Frank Kurnik v. Amgen, Inc., Omnicare, Inc., PharMerica Corp., and Kindred Healthcare, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01464-JFA, was unsealed by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it intervened against Omnicare for the purposes of settlement. The complaint alleges violations of the False Claims Act stemming from activities in connection with agreements it had with the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Aranesp that allegedly violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. In a previous filing, prior to the complaint being unsealed, the Company disclosed the underlying investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina. The Company previously recorded a provision related to this matter. On February 27, 2014, the Company agreed to a settlement of this matter in exchange for a payment of $4.2 million, which was accrued as of December 31, 2013. On February 28, 2014, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice. On November 18, 2013, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Omnicare, Inc., NeighborCare, Inc., PharMerica Corporation, and Managed Health Care Associates, Inc., No. 1:12-CIV-0275 was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint was filed under seal on January 12, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was brought by Fox Rx., Inc. as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several states. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company dispensed certain brand medications in lieu of generic alternatives in violation of state board of pharmacy regulations or state Medicaid laws, and allegations that the Company dispensed expired medications in violation of Medicare regulations. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On February 7, 2014, the relator filed a Second Amended Complaint. On February 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On July 29, 2013, a complaint entitled James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General, ex rel. State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 603091, was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint was first filed against Abbott on June 30, 2011. Omnicare and other defendants were added on July 9, 2013. The complaint was brought by the Louisiana Attorney General alleging certain activities in connection with agreements Omnicare had with Abbott, the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Depakote, violated the Louisiana Medical Assistance Program Integrity Laws and Unfair Trade Practices Act. On August 27, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. On September 26, 2013, the State moved to remand the case to state court. The Company opposed the motion. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On May 23, 2013, a qui tam complaint entitled United States and the State of Illinois ex rel. Alan Litwiller v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08980, was unsealed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint was brought by Alan Litwiller as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and the State of Illinois. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous Illinois state law based upon allegations that the Company agreed to forego collection of certain debts, provided certain credits or refunds to customers, provided charitable donations to charities associated with certain customers, and provided other services below cost for referrals of business in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On September 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the relator’s claims. On April 14, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On March 22, 2013, a qui tam complaint entitled United States et al. ex rel. Susan Ruscher v. Omnicare, Inc. et al., Civil No. 08-cv-3396, which had been filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, was unsealed by the court. The complaint was brought by Susan Ruscher as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company’s practices relating to customer collections violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action at this time. On September 6, 2013, the relator filed a Third Amended Complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Company filed a motion 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 March 11, 2013, a qui tam complaint entitled United States et al. ex rel. Marc Silver v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. Civil No. 1:11-cv-01326, which had been filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, was unsealed by the court. The complaint was brought by Marc Silver as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon 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. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On August 30, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 22, 2013, as part of the agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged in the Gale complaint (as described below), the Company agreed with the relator to settle certain federal claims alleged in the Silver complaint. The agreement in principle was not effectuated. On November 12, 2013, the relator filed his Third Amended Complaint and on December 6, 2013, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On January 24, 2014, as part of the revised agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged in the Gale complaint, the Company agreed to pay $8.24 million and no attorneys’ fees to settle all state claims in the Silver complaint and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to have all federal claims in the Silver complaint dismissed with prejudice. This agreement in principle is subject to approval by the federal and state governments and execution of definitive settlement documentation. While the Company believes that a final settlement will be reached, there can be no assurance that any final settlement agreement will be executed or as to the final terms of such settlement. 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. On October 22, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in principle, without admitting liability, with the relator, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $120 million, plus attorneys’ fees, to settle the relator’s alleged claims, as well as certain claims alleged in the Silver complaint (described above). On December 6, 2013, after approval by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company and the relator executed settlement documentation. Prior to the case being dismissed, the court learned of a potential breach of the seal by the relator and potential misrepresentations by the relator and his attorneys and held a hearing on January 9, 2014 to reconsider the court’s prior order denying the Company’s motion for disqualification of the relator and dismissal of the action and the Company's additional motion for sanctions. Prior to the court’s decision on the reconsideration motion and a motion for sanctions against the relator and his attorneys, on January 24, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle, without admitting liability, with the U.S. Department of Justice (which was granted leave to intervene on February 20, 2014), in which the Company agreed to pay $116 million and no attorneys’ fees to settle the claims alleged in the Gale complaint and to pay $8.24 million and no attorneys’ fees to settle all the state claims alleged in the Silver complaint and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to have federal claims alleged in the Silver complaint dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Company and the relator reached an agreement in principle pursuant to which the relator will pay the Company $4.24 million to settle the motion for sanctions. These agreements in principle are subject to approval by the federal and state governments and execution of definitive settlement documentation. The Company recorded a provision equal to the net settlement amount and an estimate of legal fees in its financial results for the year ended December 31, 2013. While the Company believes that a final settlement will be reached, there can be no assurance that any final settlement agreement will be executed or as to the final terms of such settlement. On August 4, 2011, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Omnicare, Inc. and Neighborcare, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-0962, which 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 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 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 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, the relator filed a 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. On May 17, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motions to dismiss. The court dismissed all claims except those related to prescriptions filled for Fox patients between 2009 and 2010. On December 2, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in the case. 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal securities laws 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. On March 27, 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims with prejudice. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit appealing the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The parties completed oral argument before the Sixth Circuit on January 30, 2014. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. On October 29, 2010, a qui tam complaint entitled United States et al., ex rel. Banigan and Templin v. Organon USA, Inc., Omnicare, Inc. and PharMerica Corporation, 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 declined to intervene in this action. The court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss on June 1, 2012. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. The U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. 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. The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether certain of the Company's practices relating to customer collections 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 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, which 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. 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. The relator filed an amended motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2012. On October 19, 2012, the court denied the relator’s motion to reconsider. On November 16, 2012, the relator filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the District Court’s denial of the motion to reconsider and granting of the Company’s motion to dismiss. On February 21, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the United States District Court’s dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice. 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 (“OIG”) 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 CIA 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 has increased and will continue to increase. In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. 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 district court dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. 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 district 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 Statute 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 the plaintiffs’ most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 6, 2013, the Company petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc was denied on July 23, 2013. On October 4, 2013 the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari. The three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 included charges of $7.1 million and approximately $22.6 million, respectively, reflected in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income, primarily for estimated litigation and other related settlements and associated professional expenses for resolution of certain large customer disputes, certain regulatory matters with the federal government and various states, qui tam lawsuits, 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 Statement 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. In addition to the inquiries discussed above, the Company from time to time receives government inquiries from federal and state agencies regarding compliance with various healthcare laws. 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. With respect to violations of the False Claims Act, treble damages and/or additional penalties per claim will apply. Consequently, unless otherwise stated, 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 its directors and officers 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 are unknown and not currently predictable. Accordingly, no liabilities have been recorded for the indemnifications.

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 March 21, 2014, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Dr. Reddy’s Inc., Omnicare, Inc., and NeighborCare, Inc., No. 13-CIV-3779 was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint was filed under seal on June 4, 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was brought by Fox Rx., Inc. as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several states. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company entered into rebate arrangements with a manufacturer of generic simvastatin allegedly in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On December 4, 2013, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Raymond Dolan v. Omnicare, Inc., et al. was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint, filed under seal on January 19, 2010 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, was brought by Raymond Dolan as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and the States of Illinois and North Carolina. The relator filed a First Amended Complaint on February 11, 2014. The relator asserts violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company entered into contracts with certain customer facilities in Illinois that included pricing for pharmaceuticals below Average Wholesale Price as well as other discounted pricing in return for referrals of business, allegedly in violation of the Stark Law, Medicare regulations, and the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice notified the court on September 13, 2013 that it declined to intervene. On March 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On November 26, 2013, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Frank Kurnik v. Amgen, Inc., Omnicare, Inc., PharMerica Corp., and Kindred Healthcare, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-01464-JFA, was unsealed by the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it intervened against Omnicare for the purposes of settlement. The complaint alleges violations of the False Claims Act stemming from activities in connection with agreements it had with the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Aranesp that allegedly violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. In a previous filing, prior to the complaint being unsealed, the Company disclosed the underlying investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of South Carolina. The Company previously recorded a provision related to this matter. On February 27, 2014, the Company agreed to a settlement of this matter in exchange for a payment of $4.2 million, which was accrued as of December 31, 2013. On February 28, 2014, the Court dismissed this case with prejudice.

On November 18, 2013, a complaint entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Omnicare, Inc., NeighborCare, Inc., PharMerica Corporation, and Managed Health Care Associates, Inc., No. 1:12-CIV-0275 was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint was filed under seal on January 12, 2012 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint was brought by Fox Rx., Inc. as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several states. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company dispensed certain brand medications in lieu of generic alternatives in violation of state board of pharmacy regulations or state Medicaid laws, and allegations that the Company dispensed expired medications in violation of Medicare regulations. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On February 7, 2014, the relator filed a Second Amended Complaint. On February 28, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On July 29, 2013, a complaint entitled James D. “Buddy” Caldwell, Attorney General, ex rel. State of Louisiana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 603091, was served on Omnicare. The initial complaint was first filed against Abbott on June 30, 2011. Omnicare and other defendants were added on July 9, 2013. The complaint was brought by the Louisiana Attorney General alleging certain activities in connection with agreements Omnicare had with Abbott, the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Depakote, violated the Louisiana Medical Assistance Program Integrity Laws and Unfair Trade Practices Act. On August 27, 2013, the Company removed this action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana. On September 26, 2013, the State moved to remand the case to state court. The Company opposed the motion. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On May 23, 2013, a qui tam complaint entitled United States and the State of Illinois ex rel. Alan Litwiller v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-08980, was unsealed by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. The complaint was brought by Alan Litwiller as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and the State of Illinois. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous Illinois state law based upon allegations that the Company agreed to forego collection of certain debts, provided certain credits or refunds to customers, provided charitable donations to charities associated with certain customers, and provided other services below cost for referrals of business in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On September 16, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the relator’s claims. On April 14, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On March 22, 2013, a qui tam complaint entitled United States et al. ex rel. Susan Ruscher v. Omnicare, Inc. et al., Civil No. 08-cv-3396, which had been filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, was unsealed by the court. The complaint was brought by Susan Ruscher as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon allegations that the Company’s practices relating to customer collections violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action at this time. On September 6, 2013, the relator filed a Third Amended Complaint. On November 5, 2013, the Company filed a motion 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 March 11, 2013, a qui tam complaint entitled United States et al. ex rel. Marc Silver v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. Civil No. 1:11-cv-01326, which had been filed under seal in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, was unsealed by the court. The complaint was brought by Marc Silver as a private party qui tam relator on behalf of the federal government and several state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and analogous state laws based upon 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. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On August 30, 2013, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 22, 2013, as part of the agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged in the Gale complaint (as described below), the Company agreed with the relator to settle certain federal claims alleged in the Silver complaint. The agreement in principle was not effectuated. On November 12, 2013, the relator filed his Third Amended Complaint and on December 6, 2013, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint. On January 24, 2014, as part of the revised agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged in the Gale complaint, the Company agreed to pay $8.24 million and no attorneys’ fees to settle all state claims in the Silver complaint and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to have all federal claims in the Silver complaint dismissed with prejudice. This agreement in principle is subject to approval by the federal and state governments and execution of definitive settlement documentation. While the Company believes that a final settlement will be reached, there can be no assurance that any final settlement agreement will be executed or as to the final terms of such settlement.

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. On October 22, 2013, the Company reached an agreement in principle, without admitting liability, with the relator, pursuant to which the Company agreed to pay $120 million, plus attorneys’ fees, to settle the relator’s alleged claims, as well as certain claims alleged in the Silver complaint (described above). On December 6, 2013, after approval by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Company and the relator executed settlement documentation. Prior to the case being dismissed, the court learned of a potential breach of the seal by the relator and potential misrepresentations by the relator and his attorneys and held a hearing on January 9, 2014 to reconsider the court’s prior order denying the Company’s motion for disqualification of the relator and dismissal of the action and the Company's additional motion for sanctions. Prior to the court’s decision on the reconsideration motion and a motion for sanctions against the relator and his attorneys, on January 24, 2014, the Company reached an agreement in principle, without admitting liability, with the U.S. Department of Justice (which was granted leave to intervene on February 20, 2014), in which the Company agreed to pay $116 million and no attorneys’ fees to settle the claims alleged in the Gale complaint and to pay $8.24 million and no attorneys’ fees to settle all the state claims alleged in the Silver complaint and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to have federal claims alleged in the Silver complaint dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Company and the relator reached an agreement in principle pursuant to which the relator will pay the Company $4.24 million to settle the motion for sanctions. These agreements in principle are subject to approval by the federal and state governments and execution of definitive settlement documentation. The Company recorded a provision equal to the net settlement amount and an estimate of legal fees in its financial results for the year ended December 31, 2013. While the Company believes that a final settlement will be reached, there can be no assurance that any final settlement agreement will be executed or as to the final terms of such settlement.

On August 4, 2011, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States ex rel. Fox Rx, Inc. v. Omnicare, Inc. and Neighborcare, Inc., No. 1:11-cv-0962, which 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 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 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 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, the relator filed a 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. On May 17, 2013, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company’s motions to dismiss. The court dismissed all claims except those related to prescriptions filled for Fox patients between 2009 and 2010. On December 2, 2013, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all remaining claims in the case. 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, alleging violations of federal securities laws 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. On March 27, 2013, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and dismissed all claims with prejudice. On April 26, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit appealing the District Court’s order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The parties completed oral argument before the Sixth Circuit on January 30, 2014. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

On October 29, 2010, a qui tam complaint entitled United States et al., ex rel. Banigan and Templin v. Organon USA, Inc., Omnicare, Inc. and PharMerica Corporation, 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 declined to intervene in this action. The court denied the Company’s motion to dismiss on June 1, 2012. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

The U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. 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.

The U.S. Department of Justice is investigating whether certain of the Company's practices relating to customer collections 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 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, which 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. 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. The relator filed an amended motion for reconsideration on September 10, 2012. On October 19, 2012, the court denied the relator’s motion to reconsider. On November 16, 2012, the relator filed a Notice of Appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit from the District Court’s denial of the motion to reconsider and granting of the Company’s motion to dismiss. On February 21, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the United States District Court’s dismissal of the lawsuit with prejudice.

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 (“OIG”) 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 CIA 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 has increased and will continue to increase.

In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. 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 district court dismissed the case. On November 9, 2007, plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the U.S. 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 district 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 Statute 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 the plaintiffs’ most recent complaint and on February 13, 2012 the district court dismissed the case and struck the case from the docket. On March 12, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On May 23, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint. On June 6, 2013, the Company petitioned the Court of Appeals for a rehearing en banc. The petition for rehearing en banc was denied on July 23, 2013. On October 4, 2013 the Company filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On March 3, 2014, the United States Supreme Court granted the Company’s petition for writ of certiorari.

The three months ended March 31, 2014 and 2013 included charges of $7.1 million and approximately $22.6 million, respectively, reflected in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income, primarily for estimated litigation and other related settlements and associated professional expenses for resolution of certain large customer disputes, certain regulatory matters with the federal government and various states, qui tam lawsuits, 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 Statement 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. In addition to the inquiries discussed above, the Company from time to time receives government inquiries from federal and state agencies regarding compliance with various healthcare laws. 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. With respect to violations of the False Claims Act, treble damages and/or additional penalties per claim will apply. Consequently, unless otherwise stated, 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 its directors and officers 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 are unknown and not currently predictable. Accordingly, no liabilities have been recorded for the indemnifications.