Legal Proceedings	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Proceedings	LEGAL PROCEEDINGS Overview We record reserves and accrue costs for certain legal proceedings and regulatory matters to the extent that we determine an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. While such reserves and accrued costs reflect our best estimate of the probable loss for such matters, our recorded amounts may differ materially from the actual amount of any such losses. In some cases, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal and regulatory proceedings, which may be exacerbated by various factors, including but not limited to that they may involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or punitive damages; present novel legal theories or legal uncertainties; involve disputed facts; represent a shift in regulatory policy; involve a large number of parties, claimants or regulatory bodies; are in the early stages of the proceedings; involve a number of separate proceedings, each with a wide range of potential outcomes; or result in a change of business practices. Further, there may be various levels of judicial review available to the Company in connection with any such proceeding in the event damages are awarded or a fine or penalty is assessed. As of the date of this report, amounts accrued for legal proceedings and regulatory matters were not material. However, it is possible that in a particular quarter or annual period our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and/or liquidity could be materially adversely affected by an ultimate unfavorable resolution of or development in legal and/or regulatory proceedings, including those described below in this Note 8 under the headings “Military and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions” and “Litigation and Investigations Related to Unaccounted-for Server Drives,” depending, in part, upon our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow or liquidity in such period, and our reputation may be adversely affected. Except for the regulatory and legal proceedings discussed in this Note 8 under the headings “Military and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions” and “Litigation and Investigations Related to Unaccounted-for Server Drives,” management believes that the ultimate outcome of any of the regulatory and legal proceedings that are currently pending against us should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and liquidity. Military and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions We are a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District of California”) relating to the independent contractor classification of counselors (“MFLCs”) who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN Government Services, Inc. (“MHNGS”), to provide short-term, non-medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military and Family Life Consultants) program. On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors in the state of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and interest. We moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September 30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act. On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and interest. They also seek penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has since transferred the case to the Northern District of California to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2, 2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. (“MHN”) (also a subsidiary). The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October 24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal, which has not yet been scheduled for hearing. On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs’ class claims and California Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties. Litigation and Investigations Related to Unaccounted-for Server Drives We are a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in California state and federal courts relating to information security issues. On January 21, 2011, International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM"), which handles our data center operations, notified us that it could not locate several hard disk drives that had been used in our data center located in Rancho Cordova, California. We have since determined that personal information of approximately two million former and current Health Net members, employees and health care providers is on the drives. Commencing on March 14, 2011, we provided written notification to the individuals whose information is on the drives. To help protect the personal information of affected individuals, we offered them two years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit files services, if needed. On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this incident was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Central District of California"), and similar actions were later filed against us in other federal and state courts in California. A number of those actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Eastern District of California"), and the two remaining actions are currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco ("San Francisco County Superior Court") and the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Sacramento County Superior Court"). The consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending in the Eastern District of California was filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of our current or former members who received the written notification, and also named IBM as a defendant. It sought to state claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act, and sought statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and other relief. On August 29, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2012, the district court issued an order dismissing the consolidated complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their action in federal court. On April 20, 2012, an amended complaint with a new plaintiff was filed against us, but no longer asserted claims against IBM. The amended complaint asserted the same causes of action and sought the same relief as the earlier complaint. On June 18, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on March 28, 2011, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California residents who received the written notification, and seeks to state similar claims against us, as well as claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeks similar relief. We moved to compel arbitration of the two named plaintiffs’ claims. The court granted our motion as to one of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the other. We have appealed the latter ruling, but subsequently dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff as to whom our motion to compel arbitration was granted filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of that ruling. On July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate its order granting the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order denying the motion to compel. The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on April 3, 2012, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California members whose information was contained on the unaccounted for drives. The action contains the same claims and seeks the same relief as the case pending in the Eastern District of California. On June 18, 2012, we filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of this complaint. In July 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the plaintiffs in the three putative class actions described above. On October 23, 2013, counsel for the named plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement with the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Court granted that motion on November 21, 2013. On June 23, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement. As a result of the settlement, each of the three putative class actions described above will be dismissed with prejudice, and all class members who did not opt out will release all claims they may have related to or arising from the unaccounted-for server drives. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which covers all individuals whose personal information was identified as being on the unaccounted-for server drives, class members who did not previously accept our offer of the credit monitoring and related services described above are eligible to receive such credit monitoring and related services for a period of two years at no cost to them. Class members who previously accepted our original offer are eligible to receive one additional year of such services. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, class members are eligible to receive reimbursement for certain unreimbursed losses arising from identity theft during a specified time period, up to a cap of $50,000 per class member, and $2 million in the aggregate. The Settlement Agreement also provides that we will continue our ongoing activities to enhance our information security measures, including the encryption of data at rest on our servers and storage area networks. We are also responsible for the payment of the court's award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of approximately $2.3 million. Finally, we will be responsible for the costs of administering the Settlement Agreement. We do not expect that the terms of the Settlement Agreement will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements. We also have been informed that the incident involving the unaccounted-for server drives is under investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care ("DMHC"). Miscellaneous Proceedings In the ordinary course of our business operations, we are subject to periodic reviews, investigations and audits by various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, without limitation, CMS, DMHC, the Office of Civil Rights of HHS and state departments of insurance, with respect to our compliance with a wide variety of rules and regulations applicable to our business, including, without limitation, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, rules relating to pre-authorization penalties, payment of out-of-network claims, timely review of grievances and appeals, and timely and accurate payment of claims, any one of which may result in remediation of certain claims, contract termination, the loss of licensure or the right to participate in certain programs, and the assessment of regulatory fines or penalties, which could be substantial. From time to time, we receive subpoenas and other requests for information from, and are subject to investigations by, such regulatory agencies, as well as from state attorneys general. There also continues to be heightened review by regulatory authorities of, and increased litigation regarding, the health care industry’s business practices, including, without limitation, information privacy, premium rate increases, utilization management, appeal and grievance processing, rescission of insurance coverage and claims payment practices. In addition, in the ordinary course of our business operations, we are party to various other legal proceedings, including, without limitation, litigation arising out of our general business activities, such as contract disputes, employment litigation, wage and hour claims, including, without limitation, cases involving allegations of misclassification of employees and/or failure to pay for off-the-clock work, real estate and intellectual property claims, claims brought by members or providers seeking coverage or additional reimbursement for services allegedly rendered to our members, but which allegedly were denied, underpaid, not timely paid or not paid, and claims arising out of the acquisition or divestiture of various business units or other assets. We also are subject to claims relating to the performance of contractual obligations to providers, members, employer groups and others, including the alleged failure to properly pay claims and challenges to the manner in which we process claims, and claims alleging that we have engaged in unfair business practices. In addition, we are subject to claims relating to information security incidents and breaches, reinsurance agreements, rescission of coverage and other types of insurance coverage obligations and claims relating to the insurance industry in general. We are, and may be in the future, subject to class action lawsuits brought against various managed care organizations and other class action lawsuits. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the miscellaneous legal and regulatory proceedings to which we are currently a party; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties. In some of the cases pending against us, substantial non-economic or punitive damages are being sought. Potential Settlements We regularly evaluate legal proceedings and regulatory matters pending against us, including those described above in this Note 8, to determine if settlement of such matters would be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The costs associated with any settlement of the various legal proceedings and regulatory matters to which we are or may be subject from time to time, including those described above in this Note 8, could be substantial and, in certain cases, could result in a significant earnings charge or impact on our cash flow in any particular quarter in which we enter into a settlement agreement and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and/or liquidity and may affect our reputation.

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

Overview

We record reserves and accrue costs for certain legal proceedings and regulatory matters to the extent that we determine an unfavorable outcome is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. While such reserves and accrued costs reflect our best estimate of the probable loss for such matters, our recorded amounts may differ materially from the actual amount of any such losses. In some cases, no estimate of the possible loss or range of loss in excess of amounts accrued, if any, can be made because of the inherently unpredictable nature of legal and regulatory proceedings, which may be exacerbated by various factors, including but not limited to that they may involve indeterminate claims for monetary damages or may involve fines, penalties or punitive damages; present novel legal theories or legal uncertainties; involve disputed facts; represent a shift in regulatory policy; involve a large number of parties, claimants or regulatory bodies; are in the early stages of the proceedings; involve a number of separate proceedings, each with a wide range of potential outcomes; or result in a change of business practices. Further, there may be various levels of judicial review available to the Company in connection with any such proceeding in the event damages are awarded or a fine or penalty is assessed. As of the date of this report, amounts accrued for legal proceedings and regulatory matters were not material. However, it is possible that in a particular quarter or annual period our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and/or liquidity could be materially adversely affected by an ultimate unfavorable resolution of or development in legal and/or regulatory proceedings, including those described below in this Note 8 under the headings “Military and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions” and “Litigation and Investigations Related to Unaccounted-for Server Drives,” depending, in part, upon our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow or liquidity in such period, and our reputation may be adversely affected. Except for the regulatory and legal proceedings discussed in this Note 8 under the headings “Military and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions” and “Litigation and Investigations Related to Unaccounted-for Server Drives,” management believes that the ultimate outcome of any of the regulatory and legal proceedings that are currently pending against us should not have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and liquidity.

Military and Family Life Counseling Program Putative Class and Collective Actions

We are a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the “Northern District of California”) relating to the independent contractor classification of counselors (“MFLCs”) who contracted with our subsidiary, MHN Government Services, Inc. (“MHNGS”), to provide short-term, non-medical counseling at U.S. military installations throughout the country under our Military and Family Life Counseling (formerly Military and Family Life Consultants) program.

On June 14, 2011, two former MFLCs filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for Pierce County against Health Net, Inc., MHNGS, and MHN Services d/b/a MHN Services Corporation (also a subsidiary), on behalf of themselves and a proposed class of current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors in the state of Washington from June 14, 2008 to the present. Plaintiffs claim that MFLCs were misclassified as independent contractors under Washington law and are entitled to the wages and overtime pay that they would have received had they been classified as non-exempt employees. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and interest. We moved to compel the case to arbitration, and the court denied the motion on September 30, 2011. We appealed the decision. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision on August 15, 2013. On February 26, 2014, we removed this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act.

On May 15, 2012, the same two MFLCs who filed the Washington action, as well as 12 other named plaintiffs, filed a proposed collective action lawsuit against the same defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington on behalf of themselves and other current and former MFLCs who have performed services as independent contractors nationwide from May 15, 2009 to the present. They allege misclassification under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and seek unpaid wages, unpaid benefits, overtime pay, statutory penalties, attorneys’ fees and interest. They also seek penalties under California Labor Code section 226.8. The court has since transferred the case to the Northern District of California to relate it to a virtually identical suit filed on October 2, 2012 against MHNGS and Managed Health Network, Inc. (“MHN”) (also a subsidiary).

The third October 2012 suit alleges misclassification under the FLSA on behalf of a nationwide class, as well under several state laws on behalf of MFLCs who worked in California, New Mexico, Hawaii, Kentucky, New York, Nevada, and North Carolina. On October 24, 2013, the parties agreed to toll the statutes of limitations for overtime violations in the following states: Alaska, Colorado, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Jersey, North Dakota, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

On November 1, 2012, we moved to compel arbitration in the Northern District of California, and the court denied the motion on April 3, 2013. We noticed our appeal of that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on April 8, 2013. On April 25, 2013, the district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for conditional FLSA collective action certification to allow notice to be sent to the FLSA collective action members. The court stayed all other proceedings pending an outcome in the Ninth Circuit appeal, which has not yet been scheduled for hearing.

On March 28, 2014, the original Washington case was transferred to the Northern District of California to relate it to the two FLSA suits pending there. On April 11, 2014, we moved to stay the suit pending the Ninth Circuit appeal. We also filed two alternative motions seeking an order to either compel the case to arbitration or dismiss Plaintiffs’ class claims and California Labor Code section 226.8 claims. On June 3, 2014, the court granted our motion to stay, and denied the later alternative motions without prejudice to renewal after the stay is lifted.

We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties.

Litigation and Investigations Related to Unaccounted-for Server Drives

We are a defendant in three related litigation matters pending in California state and federal courts relating to information security issues. On January 21, 2011, International Business Machines Corp. ("IBM"), which handles our data center operations, notified us that it could not locate several hard disk drives that had been used in our data center located in Rancho Cordova, California. We have since determined that personal information of approximately two million former and current Health Net members, employees and health care providers is on the drives. Commencing on March 14, 2011, we provided written notification to the individuals whose information is on the drives. To help protect the personal information of affected individuals, we offered them two years of free credit monitoring services, in addition to identity theft insurance and fraud resolution and restoration of credit files services, if needed.

On March 18, 2011, a putative class action relating to this incident was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (the "Central District of California"), and similar actions were later filed against us in other federal and state courts in California. A number of those actions were transferred to and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (the "Eastern District of California"), and the two remaining actions are currently pending in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco ("San Francisco County Superior Court") and the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento ("Sacramento County Superior Court"). The consolidated amended complaint in the federal action pending in the Eastern District of California was filed on behalf of a putative class of over 800,000 of our current or former members who received the written notification, and also named IBM as a defendant. It sought to state claims for violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act and the California Customer Records Act, and sought statutory damages of up to $1,000 for each class member, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees and other relief. On August 29, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint. On January 20, 2012, the district court issued an order dismissing the consolidated complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring their action in federal court. On April 20, 2012, an amended complaint with a new plaintiff was filed against us, but no longer asserted claims against IBM. The amended complaint asserted the same causes of action and sought the same relief as the earlier complaint. On June 18, 2012, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.

The San Francisco County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on March 28, 2011, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California residents who received the written notification, and seeks to state similar claims against us, as well as claims for violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, and seeks similar relief. We moved to compel arbitration of the two named plaintiffs’ claims. The court granted our motion as to one of the named plaintiffs and denied it as to the other. We have appealed the latter ruling, but subsequently dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the plaintiff as to whom our motion to compel arbitration was granted filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the California Court of Appeal seeking review of that ruling. On July 9, 2012, the Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the Superior Court to vacate its order granting the motion to compel arbitration and to enter an order denying the motion to compel.

The Sacramento County Superior Court proceeding was instituted on April 3, 2012, and is brought on behalf of a putative class of California members whose information was contained on the unaccounted for drives. The action contains the same claims and seeks the same relief as the case pending in the Eastern District of California. On June 18, 2012, we filed a demurrer seeking dismissal of this complaint.

In July 2013, we entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the plaintiffs in the three putative class actions described above. On October 23, 2013, counsel for the named plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of the Settlement Agreement with the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Court granted that motion on November 21, 2013. On June 23, 2014, the court granted final approval of the settlement. As a result of the settlement, each of the three putative class actions described above will be dismissed with prejudice, and all class members who did not opt out will release all claims they may have related to or arising from the unaccounted-for server drives. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, which covers all individuals whose personal information was identified as being on the unaccounted-for server drives, class members who did not previously accept our offer of the credit monitoring and related services described above are eligible to receive such credit monitoring and related services for a period of two years at no cost to them. Class members who previously accepted our original offer are eligible to receive one additional year of such services. In addition, under the Settlement Agreement, class members are eligible to receive reimbursement for certain unreimbursed losses arising from identity theft during a specified time period, up to a cap of $50,000 per class member, and $2 million in the aggregate. The Settlement Agreement also provides that we will continue our ongoing activities to enhance our information security measures, including the encryption of data at rest on our servers and storage area networks. We are also responsible for the payment of the court's award of fees and expenses to plaintiffs' counsel in the amount of approximately $2.3 million. Finally, we will be responsible for the costs of administering the Settlement Agreement. We do not expect that the terms of the Settlement Agreement will have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

We also have been informed that the incident involving the unaccounted-for server drives is under investigation by the California Department of Managed Health Care ("DMHC").

Miscellaneous Proceedings

In the ordinary course of our business operations, we are subject to periodic reviews, investigations and audits by various federal and state regulatory agencies, including, without limitation, CMS, DMHC, the Office of Civil Rights of HHS and state departments of insurance, with respect to our compliance with a wide variety of rules and regulations applicable to our business, including, without limitation, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, rules relating to pre-authorization penalties, payment of out-of-network claims, timely review of grievances and appeals, and timely and accurate payment of claims, any one of which may result in remediation of certain claims, contract termination, the loss of licensure or the right to participate in certain programs, and the assessment of regulatory fines or penalties, which could be substantial. From time to time, we receive subpoenas and other requests for information from, and are subject to investigations by, such regulatory agencies, as well as from state attorneys general. There also continues to be heightened review by regulatory authorities of, and increased litigation regarding, the health care industry’s business practices, including, without limitation, information privacy, premium rate increases, utilization management, appeal and grievance processing, rescission of insurance coverage and claims payment practices.

In addition, in the ordinary course of our business operations, we are party to various other legal proceedings, including, without limitation, litigation arising out of our general business activities, such as contract disputes, employment litigation, wage and hour claims, including, without limitation, cases involving allegations of misclassification of employees and/or failure to pay for off-the-clock work, real estate and intellectual property claims, claims brought by members or providers seeking coverage or additional reimbursement for services allegedly rendered to our members, but which allegedly were denied, underpaid, not timely paid or not paid, and claims arising out of the acquisition or divestiture of various business units or other assets. We also are subject to claims relating to the performance of contractual obligations to providers, members, employer groups and others, including the alleged failure to properly pay claims and challenges to the manner in which we process claims, and claims alleging that we have engaged in unfair business practices. In addition, we are subject to claims relating to information security incidents and breaches, reinsurance agreements, rescission of coverage and other types of insurance coverage obligations and claims relating to the insurance industry in general. We are, and may be in the future, subject to class action lawsuits brought against various managed care organizations and other class action lawsuits.

We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the miscellaneous legal and regulatory proceedings to which we are currently a party; however, these proceedings are subject to many uncertainties. In some of the cases pending against us, substantial non-economic or punitive damages are being sought.

Potential Settlements

We regularly evaluate legal proceedings and regulatory matters pending against us, including those described above in this Note 8, to determine if settlement of such matters would be in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders. The costs associated with any settlement of the various legal proceedings and regulatory matters to which we are or may be subject from time to time, including those described above in this Note 8, could be substantial and, in certain cases, could result in a significant earnings charge or impact on our cash flow in any particular quarter in which we enter into a settlement agreement and could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and/or liquidity and may affect our reputation.