(8)	Commitments and Contingencies

Junk Fax Prevention Act Lawsuits

On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary, Healthways WholeHealth Networks, Inc. ("HWHN"), were named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an "unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient). The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The case has been removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Eastern Division ("California Matter").

On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the TCPA, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount. We deny the claims and intend to vigorously defend these actions.

In connection with these actions, on March 2, 2015, Healthways and HWHN filed with the FCC a Petition for Retroactive Waiver ("Waiver Petition") of the FCC's regulation that requires advertising faxes sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient to include an "opt-out" notice. The FCC has previously granted retroactive waivers of that regulation to several petitioners who were facing lawsuits alleging that the petitioners failed to include the "opt-out" language in fax advertisements sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the recipients. We cannot predict whether the FCC will grant our Waiver Petition or, if granted, the impact on the California Matter or the Illinois Matter.

Performance Award Lawsuit

On September 4, 2012, Milton Pfeiffer ("Plaintiff"), claiming to be a stockholder of the Company, filed a putative derivative action against the Company and the Board of Directors (the "Board") in Delaware Chancery Court (the "Court") alleging that the Compensation Committee of the Board and the Board breached their fiduciary duties and violated the Company's 2007 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan") by granting Ben R. Leedle, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, discretionary performance awards under the Plan in the form of options to purchase an aggregate of 500,000 shares of the Company's common stock, which consisted of a performance award in November 2011 granting Mr. Leedle the right to purchase 365,000 shares and a performance award in February 2012 granting Mr. Leedle the right to purchase 135,000 shares (the "Performance Awards"). Plaintiff alleges that the Performance Awards exceeded what is authorized by the Plan and that the Company's 2012 proxy statement, in which the Performance Awards are disclosed, is false and misleading. Plaintiff also alleges that Mr. Leedle breached his fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched by receiving the Performance Awards. Plaintiff is seeking, among other things, the rescission or disgorgement of all alleged "excess" awards granted to Mr. Leedle under the Performance Awards, to recover any incidental damages to the Company, and an award of attorneys' fees and expenses. On November 2, 2012, the Company and the Board filed a Motion to Dismiss because Plaintiff failed to make a demand upon the Board as required by Delaware law. On November 8, 2013, the Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss. On February 21, 2014, the Company filed its answer and intends to vigorously defend the allegations.

Outlook

We are also subject to other contractual disputes, claims and legal proceedings that arise from time to time in the ordinary course of our business. While we are unable to estimate a range of potential losses, we do not believe that any of the legal proceedings pending against us as of the date of this report, some of which are expected to be covered by insurance policies, will have a material adverse effect on our financial statements. As these matters are subject to inherent uncertainties, our view of these matters may change in the future.

Contractual Commitments

In January 2008, we entered into a 25-year strategic relationship agreement with Gallup and a global joint venture agreement with Gallup in October 2012 that requires us to make payments over a 5-year period beginning January 2013. We have minimum remaining contractual cash obligations of $32.6 million related to these agreements.

In May 2011, we entered into a ten-year applications and technology services outsourcing agreement with HP Enterprise Services, LLC that contains minimum fee requirements. Total payments over the remaining term, including an estimate for future contractual cost of living adjustments, must equal or exceed a minimum level of approximately $128.0 million; however, based on initial required service and equipment level assumptions, we estimate that the remaining payments will be approximately $265.2 million. The agreement allows us to terminate all or a portion of the services after the first two years provided we pay certain termination fees, which could be material to the Company.