Commitments and Contingencies (Notes)	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 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 alleged 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. On December 15, 2014, the parties executed a settlement agreement in which the plaintiff agreed to settle the individual claims with prejudice for a nominal sum. On January 14, 2015, the court granted the parties’ motion to dismiss the individual claims with prejudice and entered an order declaring the case closed. 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. On December 1, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Company. 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 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. On February 13, 2015 the Company and the State finalized an agreement to settle and dismiss all claims in the complaint in exchange for a non-material sum. The Company recorded a provision equal to the settlement amount and an estimate of legal fees in its financial results for the year ended December 31, 2014. This matter will be dismissed 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. On January 16, 2015, the court granted the Company’s motion to amend the answer to include counterclaims against the relator. The parties are currently in discovery. 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 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 Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) investigated alleged errors and deficiencies in paperwork requirements for controlled substance dispensing at several of the Company’s pharmacies in Ohio and the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Ohio (“AUSA”), conducted an investigation relating to this matter. The AUSA conducted a criminal investigation of several current and former employees in connection with the DEA audits. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarters ended December 31 and June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. On May 10, 2012, the Company agreed to a nationwide settlement of all matters subject to the DEA investigation in exchange for a payment of $50 million. The settlement included a release of all Omnicare owned pharmacies, all Omnicare joint venture pharmacies, and all present and former directors, officers, and employees from any civil penalty claim, or any administrative action, including denial, suspension, or revocation of any DEA registration, related to the subject matter of the investigation. The Company and current and former employees are no longer the subject of a criminal investigation by the AUSA in connection with the DEA audits. The U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia, investigated 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 cooperated 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 December 22, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil complaint-in-intervention in two 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-00081, alleging civil violations of the False Claims Act in connection with the manufacturer agreements described above. 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 January 8, 2010, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States et al., ex rel. Resnick and Nehls v. Omnicare, Inc., Morris Esformes, Phillip Esformes and Lancaster Ltd. d/b/a Lancaster Health Group, No. 1:07cv5777, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois was unsealed by the court. The U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Illinois have notified the court that they have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Adam Resnick and Maureen Nehls as private party qui tam relators on behalf of the federal government and two state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and certain state statutes based on allegations that Omnicare acquired certain institutional pharmacies at above-market rates in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and applicable state statutes. On December 1, 2010, Resnick filed a motion to withdraw as a relator, which the court granted on December 14, 2010. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On June 24, 2013 the Company entered into an agreement with the remaining relator to voluntarily dismiss the action and made settlement payments in an aggregate amount of approximately $20 million. The U.S. Department of Justice and named states consented to the dismissal. On July 11, 2013, the court granted the relator’s stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against the Company. 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 was held on November 3, 2014. For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, charges of $43 million, $167 million and $49 million, respectively, were included in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss), primarily for estimated litigation and other related settlements and associated professional expenses for resolution of certain regulatory matters with the federal government and various states and a qui tam lawsuit, certain large customer disputes, the investigation by the federal government and certain states relating to drug substitutions and costs associated with the purported class and derivative actions against the Company. In connection with Omnicare’s participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare programs, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries and investigations by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject. The Company maintains a compliance program that 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 Statements 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 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 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 potential 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 alleged 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. On December 15, 2014, the parties executed a settlement agreement in which the plaintiff agreed to settle the individual claims with prejudice for a nominal sum. On January 14, 2015, the court granted the parties’ motion to dismiss the individual claims with prejudice and entered an order declaring the case closed.

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. On December 1, 2014, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing with prejudice all claims against the Company.

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 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. On February 13, 2015 the Company and the State finalized an agreement to settle and dismiss all claims in the complaint in exchange for a non-material sum. The Company recorded a provision equal to the settlement amount and an estimate of legal fees in its financial results for the year ended December 31, 2014. This matter will be dismissed 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. On January 16, 2015, the court granted the Company’s motion to amend the answer to include counterclaims against the relator. The parties are currently in discovery. 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 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 Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) investigated alleged errors and deficiencies in paperwork requirements for controlled substance dispensing at several of the Company’s pharmacies in Ohio and the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Ohio (“AUSA”), conducted an investigation relating to this matter. The AUSA conducted a criminal investigation of several current and former employees in connection with the DEA audits. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarters ended December 31 and June 30, 2011 and December 31, 2010. On May 10, 2012, the Company agreed to a nationwide settlement of all matters subject to the DEA investigation in exchange for a payment of $50 million. The settlement included a release of all Omnicare owned pharmacies, all Omnicare joint venture pharmacies, and all present and former directors, officers, and employees from any civil penalty claim, or any administrative action, including denial, suspension, or revocation of any DEA registration, related to the subject matter of the investigation. The Company and current and former employees are no longer the subject of a criminal investigation by the AUSA in connection with the DEA audits.

The U.S. Department of Justice, through the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia, investigated 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 cooperated 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 December 22, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil complaint-in-intervention in two 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-00081, alleging civil violations of the False Claims Act in connection with the manufacturer agreements described above. 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 January 8, 2010, a qui tam complaint, entitled United States et al., ex rel. Resnick and Nehls v. Omnicare, Inc., Morris Esformes, Phillip Esformes and Lancaster Ltd. d/b/a Lancaster Health Group, No. 1:07cv5777, that was filed under seal with the U.S. District Court in Chicago, Illinois was unsealed by the court. The U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Illinois have notified the court that they have declined to intervene in this action. The complaint was brought by Adam Resnick and Maureen Nehls as private party qui tam relators on behalf of the federal government and two state governments. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act and certain state statutes based on allegations that Omnicare acquired certain institutional pharmacies at above-market rates in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute and applicable state statutes. On December 1, 2010, Resnick filed a motion to withdraw as a relator, which the court granted on December 14, 2010. The Company recorded a provision for this matter in the quarter ended June 30, 2012. On June 24, 2013 the Company entered into an agreement with the remaining relator to voluntarily dismiss the action and made settlement payments in an aggregate amount of approximately $20 million. The U.S. Department of Justice and named states consented to the dismissal. On July 11, 2013, the court granted the relator’s stipulated motion to voluntarily dismiss the claims against the Company.

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 was held on November 3, 2014.

For the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013 and 2012, charges of $43 million, $167 million and $49 million, respectively, were included in “Settlement, litigation and other related charges” on the Consolidated Statements of Comprehensive Income (Loss), primarily for estimated litigation and other related settlements and associated professional expenses for resolution of certain regulatory matters with the federal government and various states and a qui tam lawsuit, certain large customer disputes, the investigation by the federal government and certain states relating to drug substitutions and costs associated with the purported class and derivative actions against the Company. In connection with Omnicare’s participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare programs, the Company is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries and investigations by governmental/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Company is subject.

The Company maintains a compliance program that 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 Statements 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 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 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 potential 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.