Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Omnicare evaluates contingencies on an ongoing basis in light of the best available information. The Company believes that it has recorded liabilities to the extent necessary if a material loss is considered probable and reasonably estimable. To the extent that the resolution of contingencies results in actual losses that differ from the Company’s recorded liabilities, future earnings will be charged or credited accordingly. On June 2, 2014, a complaint captioned Charles Lee on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 14-CIV-1335 was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff brought the action individually and on behalf of a similarly situated class of plaintiffs. The plaintiff alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by improperly calling cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system. On July 11, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. 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 and that the Company improperly charged certain dispensing fees to Medicare Part D. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On June 17, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On July 7, 2014, Relator filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to the motion to dismiss. On August 8, 2014, the Company moved 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 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 and paid in the first half of 2014. 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. On August 12, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Company. 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 that 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. On September 23, 2014, the Court remanded the case to state court. 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. On June 17, 2014, the Company and Relator reached an agreement in principle to a dismissal of this matter. On August 4, 2014, the Court dismissed this matter with prejudice. 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. On June 12, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2014, the Company filed an answer to 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 relating to the claims in the Gale complaint and the federal claims in the Silver complaint was executed by the federal government, the Company, relators and relators’ counsel on June 24, 2014. The agreements in principle relating to the state claims were executed by each state named in the Silver complaint except for the State of Hawaii. On September 16, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the Company from the case with prejudice. 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 relating to the claims in the Gale complaint and the federal claims in the Silver complaint were executed by the federal government, the Company, the relators and relators’ counsel on June 24, 2014. The agreements in principle relating to the state claims in Silver were executed by each state named in the Silver complaint except for the State of Hawaii. 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. During the third quarter of 2014, settlement payments of $116 million and $8.24 million were made related to the Gale and Silver complaints, respectively, and $4.24 million was received related to the motion for sanctions filed by the Company against relator Gale and his attorneys. On August 11, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Company. 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. On October 10, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice. 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 the 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. In connection with this matter, on May 29, 2014, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order unsealing two previously partially sealed qui tam complaints, entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Spetter v. Abbott Laboratories. Inc., Omnicare, Inc., and PharMerica Corp., No. 1:07-cv-00006 and United States, et al., ex rel. McCoyd v. Abbott Laboratories, Omnicare, Inc., PharMerica Corp., and Miles White, No. 1:07-cv-0008, and the United States’ Notice of Intervention in the cases. The complaints allege violations of the False Claims Act stemming from activities in connection with agreements the Company had with the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Depakote that allegedly violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action. 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. On May 22, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied relator’s petition for writ of certiorari. 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. The OIG is currently seeking information concerning the Company’s compliance programs and policies and its arrangements. 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 shares of Omnicare common stock 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 thereunder) 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 thereunder. 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. On June 5, 2014, the Company filed its Brief in Support of Appeal in the United States Supreme Court. Oral argument at the United States Supreme Court is scheduled for November 3, 2014. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, charges of approximately $13 million and $27 million, respectively, and approximately $143 million and $170 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, were included in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss), 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. In connection with its 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 (Loss). The Company cannot know the ultimate outcome of the pending matters described in the preceding paragraphs, and 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 will 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 by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing certain 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 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. The Company evaluates these matters on an ongoing basis and records accruals for such contingencies if the Company concludes that it is probable that a material loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many situations, these matters are being contested by the Company, the outcome is not predictable and any potential loss is not estimable. 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) significant facts are in dispute; (vi) a large number of parties are participating in the proceedings (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) the proceedings present 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 pending 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 responsibilities for the Company. Additionally, in the normal course of its business, the Company enters into contracts pursuant to which the Company may make a variety of representations and warranties and indemnify the counterparty for certain losses. The Company’s possible exposure under these arrangements cannot be reasonably estimated, as this involves the resolution of claims made, or future claims that may be made, against the Company or its directors or officers, the outcomes of which are unknown and not currently predictable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any accrual related to its indemnification obligations.

Omnicare evaluates contingencies on an ongoing basis in light of the best available information. The Company believes that it has recorded liabilities to the extent necessary if a material loss is considered probable and reasonably estimable. To the extent that the resolution of contingencies results in actual losses that differ from the Company’s recorded liabilities, future earnings will be charged or credited accordingly.

On June 2, 2014, a complaint captioned Charles Lee on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Omnicare, Inc., No. 14-CIV-1335 was filed against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The plaintiff brought the action individually and on behalf of a similarly situated class of plaintiffs. The plaintiff alleges that the Company violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) by improperly calling cellular telephone numbers using an automatic telephone dialing system. On July 11, 2014, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. The Company denies the allegations in the complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

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 and that the Company improperly charged certain dispensing fees to Medicare Part D. The U.S. Department of Justice has notified the court that it declined to intervene in this action. On June 17, 2014, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. On July 7, 2014, Relator filed a Second Amended Complaint in response to the motion to dismiss. On August 8, 2014, the Company moved 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 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 and paid in the first half of 2014. 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. On August 12, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Company.

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 that 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. On September 23, 2014, the Court remanded the case to state court. 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. On June 17, 2014, the Company and Relator reached an agreement in principle to a dismissal of this matter. On August 4, 2014, the Court dismissed this matter with prejudice.

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. On June 12, 2014, the court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss. On July 14, 2014, the Company filed an answer to 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 relating to the claims in the Gale complaint and the federal claims in the Silver complaint was executed by the federal government, the Company, relators and relators’ counsel on June 24, 2014. The agreements in principle relating to the state claims were executed by each state named in the Silver complaint except for the State of Hawaii. On September 16, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing the Company from the case with prejudice.

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 relating to the claims in the Gale complaint and the federal claims in the Silver complaint were executed by the federal government, the Company, the relators and relators’ counsel on June 24, 2014. The agreements in principle relating to the state claims in Silver were executed by each state named in the Silver complaint except for the State of Hawaii. 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. During the third quarter of 2014, settlement payments of $116 million and $8.24 million were made related to the Gale and Silver complaints, respectively, and $4.24 million was received related to the motion for sanctions filed by the Company against relator Gale and his attorneys. On August 11, 2014, the court entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Company.

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. On October 10, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal with prejudice.

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 the 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. In connection with this matter, on May 29, 2014, the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order unsealing two previously partially sealed qui tam complaints, entitled United States, et al., ex rel. Spetter v. Abbott Laboratories. Inc., Omnicare, Inc., and PharMerica Corp., No. 1:07-cv-00006 and United States, et al., ex rel. McCoyd v. Abbott Laboratories, Omnicare, Inc., PharMerica Corp., and Miles White, No. 1:07-cv-0008, and the United States’ Notice of Intervention in the cases. The complaints allege violations of the False Claims Act stemming from activities in connection with agreements the Company had with the manufacturer of the pharmaceutical Depakote that allegedly violated the Anti-Kickback Statute. The Company believes that the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself in this action.

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. On May 22, 2014, relator filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court. On October 6, 2014, the Supreme Court denied relator’s petition for writ of certiorari.

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. The OIG is currently seeking information concerning the Company’s compliance programs and policies and its arrangements. 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 shares of Omnicare common stock 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 thereunder) 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 thereunder. 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. On June 5, 2014, the Company filed its Brief in Support of Appeal in the United States Supreme Court. Oral argument at the United States Supreme Court is scheduled for November 3, 2014.

For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, charges of approximately $13 million and $27 million, respectively, and approximately $143 million and $170 million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2013, respectively, were included in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statement of Comprehensive Income (Loss), 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. In connection with its 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 (Loss).

The Company cannot know the ultimate outcome of the pending matters described in the preceding paragraphs, and 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 will 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 by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing certain 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 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. The Company evaluates these matters on an ongoing basis and records accruals for such contingencies if the Company concludes that it is probable that a material loss will be incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. In many situations, these matters are being contested by the Company, the outcome is not predictable and any potential loss is not estimable.

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) significant facts are in dispute; (vi) a large number of parties are participating in the proceedings (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among multiple defendants); or (vii) the proceedings present 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 pending 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 responsibilities for the Company. Additionally, in the normal course of its business, the Company enters into contracts pursuant to which the Company may make a variety of representations and warranties and indemnify the counterparty for certain losses. The Company’s possible exposure under these arrangements cannot be reasonably estimated, as this involves the resolution of claims made, or future claims that may be made, against the Company or its directors or officers, the outcomes of which are unknown and not currently predictable. Accordingly, the Company has not recorded any accrual related to its indemnification obligations.