Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies.
Commitments and Contingencies	NOTE 11. Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is a party to legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims that arise in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. Except as described below, the Company is not aware of any other legal proceedings or claims that it believes may have, individually or taken together, a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s policy is to expense legal costs as they are incurred. On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the DOJ in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act. The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The DOJ lawsuit against HCRMC is described in greater detail in Note 5. As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. On June 16, 2016 and July 5, 2016, purported stockholders of the Company filed two derivative actions, respectively Subodh v. HCR ManorCare Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00858497-CU-PT-CXC and Stearns v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00861646-CU-MC-CJC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Stearns action was subsequently consolidated by the Court with the Subodh action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The consolidated derivative action alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts of wrongdoing, including, among other things, breaching fiduciary duties by publicly making false or misleading statements of fact regarding HCRMC’s finances and prospects, and failing to maintain adequate internal controls. The plaintiffs demand damages (in an unspecified amount), pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, a directive that the Company and the individual defendants improve the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures (including putting resolutions to amend the bylaws or charter to a stockholder vote), restitution from the individual defendants, costs (including attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, costs, and expenses), and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. As the Subodh action is in the early stages, the defendants are in the process of evaluating the suit and have not yet responded to the complaint. On June 9, 2016, and on August 25, 2016, the Company received letters from a private law firm, acting on behalf of its clients, purported stockholders of the Company, each asserting substantially the same allegations made in the Subodh and Stearns matters discussed above. Each letter demands that the Company’s Board of Directors take action to assert the Company’s rights. The Board of Directors is in the process of evaluating the demand letters. The Company is unable to estimate the ultimate individual or aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to matters discussed above as of September 30, 2016. Commitments for Capital Additions Under the terms of the Amended Master Lease with HCRMC, the Company is required through April 1, 2019, upon the Lessee’s request, to provide the Lessee an amount to fund Capital Additions Costs (as defined in the Amended Master Lease) approved by the Company, in the Company’s reasonable discretion, such amount not to exceed $100 million in the aggregate (“Capital Addition Financing”), but the Company is not obligated to advance more than $50 million in Capital Addition Financing in any single lease year. In connection with any Capital Addition Financing, the minimum rent allocated to the applicable property will be increased by an amount equal to the product of: (i) the amount disbursed on account of the Capital Addition Financing for the applicable property times (ii) at the time of any such disbursement, the greater of (a) 7.75% and (b) 500 basis points in excess of the then current 10-year Treasury Rate. Any such Capital Addition Financing shall be structured in a REIT tax-compliant fashion. Through September 30, 2016, approximately $1.2 million in Capital Addition Financing has been funded by the Company.

NOTE 11. Commitments and Contingencies

Legal Proceedings

From time to time, the Company is a party to legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims that arise in the ordinary course of the Company’s business. Except as described below, the Company is not aware of any other legal proceedings or claims that it believes may have, individually or taken together, a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s policy is to expense legal costs as they are incurred.

On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCRMC, and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the DOJ in a pending suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act. The plaintiff in the suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. The DOJ lawsuit against HCRMC is described in greater detail in Note 5. As the Boynton Beach action is in its early stages and a lead plaintiff has not yet been named, the defendants have not yet responded to the complaint. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it.

On June 16, 2016 and July 5, 2016, purported stockholders of the Company filed two derivative actions, respectively Subodh v. HCR ManorCare Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00858497-CU-PT-CXC and Stearns v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00861646-CU-MC-CJC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Stearns action was subsequently consolidated by the Court with the Subodh action. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The consolidated derivative action alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts of wrongdoing, including, among other things, breaching fiduciary duties by publicly making false or misleading statements of fact regarding HCRMC’s finances and prospects, and failing to maintain adequate internal controls. The plaintiffs demand damages (in an unspecified amount), pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, a directive that the Company and the individual defendants improve the Company's corporate governance and internal procedures (including putting resolutions to amend the bylaws or charter to a stockholder vote), restitution from the individual defendants, costs (including attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, costs, and expenses), and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. As the Subodh action is in the early stages, the defendants are in the process of evaluating the suit and have not yet responded to the complaint.

On June 9, 2016, and on August 25, 2016, the Company received letters from a private law firm, acting on behalf of its clients, purported stockholders of the Company, each asserting substantially the same allegations made in the Subodh and Stearns matters discussed above. Each letter demands that the Company’s Board of Directors take action to assert the Company’s rights. The Board of Directors is in the process of evaluating the demand letters.

The Company is unable to estimate the ultimate individual or aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with respect to matters discussed above as of September 30, 2016.

Commitments for Capital Additions

Under the terms of the Amended Master Lease with HCRMC, the Company is required through April 1, 2019, upon the Lessee’s request, to provide the Lessee an amount to fund Capital Additions Costs (as defined in the Amended Master Lease) approved by the Company, in the Company’s reasonable discretion, such amount not to exceed $100 million in the aggregate (“Capital Addition Financing”), but the Company is not obligated to advance more than $50 million in Capital Addition Financing in any single lease year. In connection with any Capital Addition Financing, the minimum rent allocated to the applicable property will be increased by an amount equal to the product of: (i) the amount disbursed on account of the Capital Addition Financing for the applicable property times (ii) at the time of any such disbursement, the greater of (a) 7.75% and (b) 500 basis points in excess of the then current 10-year Treasury Rate. Any such Capital Addition Financing shall be structured in a REIT tax-compliant fashion. Through September 30, 2016, approximately $1.2 million in Capital Addition Financing has been funded by the Company.