COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Legal Proceedings Breach of Contract Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery On November 3, 2015, Walgreen Co. and various affiliates (“Walgreens”) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint alleges that the Company breached certain non-compete provisions contained in the Community Pharmacy and Mail Business Purchase Agreement dated as of February 1, 2012, by and among Walgreens and certain subsidiaries and the Company and certain subsidiaries (the “2012 Purchase Agreement”). The complaint seeks both money damages and injunctive relief. On December 7, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting, among other things, that the claims raised in Walgreens’ complaint were subject to the alternative dispute resolution procedure contained in the 2012 Purchase Agreement. On March 11, 2016, the Court held oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss and granted the motion, holding that Walgreens’ breach of contract claims for money damages must be resolved in accordance with the Purchase Agreement’s alternative dispute resolution procedure. On March 15, 2016, Walgreens informed the Court that it would not be pursuing any claims for injunctive relief in the Court at that time, but instead would engage in the required alternative dispute resolution procedure. Walgreens requested that the Court keep the case open pending the results of that process. On March 16, 2016, the Court stayed the lawsuit and removed the trial from its calendar, but did not grant Walgreens any other relief or enjoin the Company from taking any action. The Company continues to believe that Walgreens’ claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against them. Due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation, however, the Company can provide no assurance as to the outcome of the matter or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. McCormack Shareholder Class Action Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery On September 8, 2015, Thomas McCormack (the “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the Board, and SunTrust Bank (“SunTrust”), as administrative agent, captioned Thomas McCormack v. BioScrip, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 11480-CB, alleging that the adoption of what the Plaintiff referred to as a “Proxy Put” or “Dead Hand Proxy Put” in the Company’s July 31, 2013 credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”), as amended from time to time, constituted a breach of the Board’s fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that the Proxy Put was invalid, unenforceable, and severable from the Credit Agreement. While the Company and SunTrust deny completely all of the allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, on October 9, 2015, the requisite lenders approved, and the Company and SunTrust executed, the Fifth Amendment to eliminate the so-called “Dead Hand Proxy Put.” As a result of the amendment, the Plaintiff agreed that his claims were moot, and the Company agreed to pay $130,000 in fees and expenses to the Plaintiff’s counsel. On January 14, 2016, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order (the “Order”) providing that the Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed with prejudice only as to the Plaintiff and the case will be closed. The Court did not rule or opine on the amount of fees and expenses. Pursuant to the Order, the Company publicly disclosed the proposed resolution of the action on January 20, 2016, and on January 21, 2016, filed an affidavit informing the Court of the Company’s compliance with the Order’s public disclosure requirement. As a result, the case has now been dismissed with prejudice. Derivative Lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery On May 7, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by the Park Employees’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (the “Derivative Complaint”). The Derivative Complaint names as defendants certain current and former directors of the Company, consisting of Richard M. Smith, Myron Holubiak, Charlotte Collins, Samuel Frieder, David Hubers, Richard Robbins, Stuart Samuels and Gordon Woodward (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), certain former officers of the Company, consisting of Kimberlee Seah, Hai Tran and Patricia Bogusz (collectively the “Officer Defendants”), Kohlberg & Co., L.L.C., Kohlberg Management V, L.L.C., Kohlberg Investors V, L.P., Kohlberg Partners V, L.P., Kohlberg TE Investors V, L.P., KOCO Investors V, L.P., and Jefferies LLC. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant in the Derivative Complaint. The Derivative Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery as Park Employees and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Richard M. Smith, Myron Z. Holubiak, Charlotte W. Collins, Samuel P. Frieder, David R. Huber, Richard L. Robbins, Stuart A. Samuels, Gordon H. Woodward, Kimberlee C. Seah, Hai V.Tran, Patricia Bogusz, Kohlberg & Co., L.L.C., Kohlberg Management V, L.L.C., Kohlberg Investors V, L.P., Kohlberg Partners V, L.P., Kohlberg TE Investors V, L.P., KOCO Investors V, L.P., Jefferies LLC and BioScrip, Inc., C.A. No. 11000-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., May 7, 2015). The Derivative Complaint alleges generally that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Company’s public disclosures, oversight of Company operations, secondary stock offerings and stock sales. The Derivative Complaint also contends that certain defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The damages sought are not quantified but include, among other things, claims for money damages, restitution, disgorgement, equitable relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and interest. The Derivative Complaint incorporates the same factual allegations from In re BioScrip, Inc., Securities Litigation (described below). On June 16, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the case. Briefing for the motion to dismiss was completed on November 30, 2015, and the court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on January 12, 2016. During the hearing, the court requested additional briefing, which was completed on February 12, 2016. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss. The Company, Director Defendants and the Officer Defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing in this lawsuit. The Company and those persons believe all of the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. However, there is no assurance that the defense will be successful or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement, judgment or litigation costs associated with this action. Certain of the defendants have sought indemnification from the Company pursuant to certain indemnification agreements, for which there may be no insurance coverage. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes that the final resolution of this action is not likely to have a material adverse effect on results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. Prior State Regulatory Matter The Company has accrued an estimate of a potential loss as of March 31, 2016 in connection with a pending regulatory and various other matters related to certain discontinued operations of the Company. The accrual recorded is not a material amount and represents the Company’s best estimate of the exposure. United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and New York State Attorney General investigation Effective January 8, 2014, the Company entered into the Federal Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and David M. Kester (the “Relator”). The Federal Settlement Agreement represented the federal and private component of the Company’s agreement to settle all civil claims under the False Claims Act and related statutes and all common law claims (collectively, the “Claims”) that could have been brought by the DOJ and Relator in the qui tam lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) by the Relator relating to the distribution of the Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation’s product Exjade® (the “Medication”) by the Company’s legacy specialty pharmacy division (the “Legacy Division”) that was divested in May 2012 (the “Civil Action”). Until January 8, 2014, the Company was prohibited from publicly disclosing any information related to the existence of the Civil Action. On January 8, 2014, the Civil Action was unsealed and made public on order of the court. Effective February 11, 2014, the Company entered into the State Settlement Agreements with the Settling States. The State Settlement Agreements represented the state component of the Company’s agreement to settle the Claims that could have been brought by the Settling States that arose out of the Legacy Division’s distribution of the Medication. With the execution of the Federal Settlement Agreement and the State Settlement Agreements (collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”), the Civil Action has been fully resolved, and the Company also expects to be fully resolved of the federal and state claims that were or could have been raised in the Civil Action. All federal claims and all state claims by the Settling States that have been or could be brought against it in the Civil Action have been dismissed with prejudice. The State Settlement Agreements expressly recognize and affirmatively provide that, by entering into the State Settlement Agreements, the Company has not made any admission of liability and the Company expressly denies the allegations in the Civil Action. Under the Settlement Agreements, the Company paid an aggregate of $15.0 million, plus interest (at an annual rate of 3.25%) in three annual payments from January 2014 through January 2016, of which the remaining $6.2 million, including interest, and $0.2 million of fees to the Relator was paid in January 2016. The Settlement Agreements represented a compromise to avoid the costs, distraction and uncertainty of protracted litigation. The Settlement Agreements do not include any admission of wrongdoing, illegal activity, or liability by the Company or its employees, directors, officers or agents. Securities Class Action Litigation in the Southern District of New York On September 30, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013, inclusive. On November 15, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in SDNY against the Company and certain of its directors and officers and certain underwriters in the Company’s April 2013 underwritten public offering of its common stock, on behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8, 2011 and September 23, 2013, inclusive. On December 19, 2013, the SDNY entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits as In re BioScrip, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-6922 (AJN) and appointing an interim lead plaintiff. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on February 19, 2014 against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, certain underwriters in the Company’s April 2013 underwritten public offering of its common stock, and a certain stockholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between November 9, 2012 and November 6, 2013, inclusive, and persons and entities who purchased the Company’s securities pursuant or traceable to two underwritten public offerings of the Company’s common stock conducted in April 2013, and August 2013. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the Legacy Division’s distribution of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation’s product Exjade® (the “Medication”) as well as the Company’s PBM Services segment. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. All defendants in the case moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on April 28, 2014. On March 31, 2015, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 14, 2015, a motion to reconsider a portion of the denial of the motions to dismiss was filed on behalf of all the remaining defendants. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion on April 28, 2015. On June 5, 2015, the SDNY denied the defendants’ motion to reconsider. On September 25, 2015, the parties entered mediation concerning all pending claims. In October 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the action (the “Proposed Settlement”), the terms and conditions of which were filed with the SDNY on December 18, 2015. The Company has agreed to the Proposed Settlement without any admission of liability or wrongdoing and solely in order to avoid the costs, distraction, and uncertainty of litigation. On February 11, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval for the settlement, certified a class of plaintiffs for settlement only, approved of the form of and mailing of notice to the stockholder class, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for June 13, 2016. Following preliminary approval, in accordance with the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the Company and its insurance carriers paid the amount of the settlement into an escrow fund. The Company’s contribution was not material, and the Company does not believe the contribution will have a material effect on results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. The Proposed Settlement remains subject to final court approval. Until final approval is obtained and until any other conditions precedent in the Proposed Settlement are completed or satisfied, there can be no assurance that this matter will in fact be resolved pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Settlement. Government Regulation Various federal and state laws and regulations affecting the healthcare industry do or may impact the Company’s current and planned operations, including, without limitation, federal and state laws prohibiting kickbacks in government health programs, federal and state antitrust and drug distribution laws, and a wide variety of consumer protection, insurance and other state laws and regulations. While management believes the Company is in substantial compliance with all existing laws and regulations material to the operation of its business, such laws and regulations are often uncertain in their application to our business practices as they evolve and are subject to rapid change. As controversies continue to arise in the healthcare industry, federal and state regulation and enforcement priorities in this area can be expected to increase, the impact of which cannot be predicted. From time to time, the Company responds to investigatory subpoenas and requests for information from governmental agencies and private parties. The Company cannot predict with certainty what the outcome of any of the foregoing might be. While the Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all laws, rules and regulations that affects its business and operations, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to scrutiny or challenge under one or more existing laws or that any such challenge would not be successful. Any such challenge, whether or not successful, could have a material effect upon the Company’s Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. A violation of the Federal anti-kickback statute, for example, may result in substantial criminal penalties, as well as suspension or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Moreover, the costs and expenses associated with defending these actions, even where successful, can be significant. Further, there can be no assurance the Company will be able to obtain or maintain any of the regulatory approvals that may be required to operate its business, and the failure to do so could have a material effect on the Company’s Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

Breach of Contract Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery

On November 3, 2015, Walgreen Co. and various affiliates (“Walgreens”) filed a lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Defendants”). The complaint alleges that the Company breached certain non-compete provisions contained in the Community Pharmacy and Mail Business Purchase Agreement dated as of February 1, 2012, by and among Walgreens and certain subsidiaries and the Company and certain subsidiaries (the “2012 Purchase Agreement”). The complaint seeks both money damages and injunctive relief. On December 7, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, asserting, among other things, that the claims raised in Walgreens’ complaint were subject to the alternative dispute resolution procedure contained in the 2012 Purchase Agreement. On March 11, 2016, the Court held oral argument on the Company’s motion to dismiss and granted the motion, holding that Walgreens’ breach of contract claims for money damages must be resolved in accordance with the Purchase Agreement’s alternative dispute resolution procedure. On March 15, 2016, Walgreens informed the Court that it would not be pursuing any claims for injunctive relief in the Court at that time, but instead would engage in the required alternative dispute resolution procedure. Walgreens requested that the Court keep the case open pending the results of that process. On March 16, 2016, the Court stayed the lawsuit and removed the trial from its calendar, but did not grant Walgreens any other relief or enjoin the Company from taking any action. The Company continues to believe that Walgreens’ claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against them. Due to the inherent uncertainty in litigation, however, the Company can provide no assurance as to the outcome of the matter or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time.

McCormack Shareholder Class Action Litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery

On September 8, 2015, Thomas McCormack (the “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company, the Board, and SunTrust Bank (“SunTrust”), as administrative agent, captioned Thomas McCormack v. BioScrip, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 11480-CB, alleging that the adoption of what the Plaintiff referred to as a “Proxy Put” or “Dead Hand Proxy Put” in the Company’s July 31, 2013 credit agreement (the “Credit Agreement”), as amended from time to time, constituted a breach of the Board’s fiduciary duty. Among other things, the Plaintiff sought a declaration that the Proxy Put was invalid, unenforceable, and severable from the Credit Agreement. While the Company and SunTrust deny completely all of the allegations of wrongdoing in the complaint, on October 9, 2015, the requisite lenders approved, and the Company and SunTrust executed, the Fifth Amendment to eliminate the so-called “Dead Hand Proxy Put.” As a result of the amendment, the Plaintiff agreed that his claims were moot, and the Company agreed to pay $130,000 in fees and expenses to the Plaintiff’s counsel. On January 14, 2016, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order (the “Order”) providing that the Plaintiff’s action will be dismissed with prejudice only as to the Plaintiff and the case will be closed. The Court did not rule or opine on the amount of fees and expenses. Pursuant to the Order, the Company publicly disclosed the proposed resolution of the action on January 20, 2016, and on January 21, 2016, filed an affidavit informing the Court of the Company’s compliance with the Order’s public disclosure requirement. As a result, the case has now been dismissed with prejudice.

Derivative Lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery

On May 7, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery by the Park Employees’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (the “Derivative Complaint”). The Derivative Complaint names as defendants certain current and former directors of the Company, consisting of Richard M. Smith, Myron Holubiak, Charlotte Collins, Samuel Frieder, David Hubers, Richard Robbins, Stuart Samuels and Gordon Woodward (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), certain former officers of the Company, consisting of Kimberlee Seah, Hai Tran and Patricia Bogusz (collectively the “Officer Defendants”), Kohlberg & Co., L.L.C., Kohlberg Management V, L.L.C., Kohlberg Investors V, L.P., Kohlberg Partners V, L.P., Kohlberg TE Investors V, L.P., KOCO Investors V, L.P., and Jefferies LLC. The Company is also named as a nominal defendant in the Derivative Complaint. The Derivative Complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery as Park Employees and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Richard M. Smith, Myron Z. Holubiak, Charlotte W. Collins, Samuel P. Frieder, David R. Huber, Richard L. Robbins, Stuart A. Samuels, Gordon H. Woodward, Kimberlee C. Seah, Hai V.Tran, Patricia Bogusz, Kohlberg & Co., L.L.C., Kohlberg Management V, L.L.C., Kohlberg Investors V, L.P., Kohlberg Partners V, L.P., Kohlberg TE Investors V, L.P., KOCO Investors V, L.P., Jefferies LLC and BioScrip, Inc., C.A. No. 11000-VCG (Del. Ch. Ct., May 7, 2015).

The Derivative Complaint alleges generally that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the Company’s public disclosures, oversight of Company operations, secondary stock offerings and stock sales. The Derivative Complaint also contends that certain defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The damages sought are not quantified but include, among other things, claims for money damages, restitution, disgorgement, equitable relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and interest. The Derivative Complaint incorporates the same factual allegations from In re BioScrip, Inc., Securities Litigation (described below). On June 16, 2015, all defendants moved to dismiss the case. Briefing for the motion to dismiss was completed on November 30, 2015, and the court heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on January 12, 2016. During the hearing, the court requested additional briefing, which was completed on February 12, 2016. The court has not yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.

The Company, Director Defendants and the Officer Defendants deny any allegations of wrongdoing in this lawsuit. The Company and those persons believe all of the claims in this lawsuit are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against these claims. However, there is no assurance that the defense will be successful or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any settlement, judgment or litigation costs associated with this action. Certain of the defendants have sought indemnification from the Company pursuant to certain indemnification agreements, for which there may be no insurance coverage. Additional similar lawsuits may be filed. The Company is unable to predict the outcome or reasonably estimate a range of possible loss at this time. While no assurance can be given as to the ultimate outcome of this matter, the Company believes that the final resolution of this action is not likely to have a material adverse effect on results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources.

Prior State Regulatory Matter

The Company has accrued an estimate of a potential loss as of March 31, 2016 in connection with a pending regulatory and various other matters related to certain discontinued operations of the Company. The accrual recorded is not a material amount and represents the Company’s best estimate of the exposure.

United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and New York State Attorney General investigation

Effective January 8, 2014, the Company entered into the Federal Settlement Agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice (the “DOJ”) and David M. Kester (the “Relator”). The Federal Settlement Agreement represented the federal and private component of the Company’s agreement to settle all civil claims under the False Claims Act and related statutes and all common law claims (collectively, the “Claims”) that could have been brought by the DOJ and Relator in the qui tam lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York (the “SDNY”) by the Relator relating to the distribution of the Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation’s product Exjade® (the “Medication”) by the Company’s legacy specialty pharmacy division (the “Legacy Division”) that was divested in May 2012 (the “Civil Action”). Until January 8, 2014, the Company was prohibited from publicly disclosing any information related to the existence of the Civil Action. On January 8, 2014, the Civil Action was unsealed and made public on order of the court. Effective February 11, 2014, the Company entered into the State Settlement Agreements with the Settling States. The State Settlement Agreements represented the state component of the Company’s agreement to settle the Claims that could have been brought by the Settling States that arose out of the Legacy Division’s distribution of the Medication.

With the execution of the Federal Settlement Agreement and the State Settlement Agreements (collectively, the “Settlement Agreements”), the Civil Action has been fully resolved, and the Company also expects to be fully resolved of the federal and state claims that were or could have been raised in the Civil Action. All federal claims and all state claims by the Settling States that have been or could be brought against it in the Civil Action have been dismissed with prejudice. The State Settlement Agreements expressly recognize and affirmatively provide that, by entering into the State Settlement Agreements, the Company has not made any admission of liability and the Company expressly denies the allegations in the Civil Action.

Under the Settlement Agreements, the Company paid an aggregate of $15.0 million, plus interest (at an annual rate of 3.25%) in three annual payments from January 2014 through January 2016, of which the remaining $6.2 million, including interest, and $0.2 million of fees to the Relator was paid in January 2016. The Settlement Agreements represented a compromise to avoid the costs, distraction and uncertainty of protracted litigation. The Settlement Agreements do not include any admission of wrongdoing, illegal activity, or liability by the Company or its employees, directors, officers or agents.

Securities Class Action Litigation in the Southern District of New York

On September 30, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) against the Company and certain of its officers on behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8, 2011 and September 20, 2013, inclusive.

On November 15, 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was filed in SDNY against the Company and certain of its directors and officers and certain underwriters in the Company’s April 2013 underwritten public offering of its common stock, on behalf of the putative class of purchasers of our securities between August 8, 2011 and September 23, 2013, inclusive.

On December 19, 2013, the SDNY entered an order consolidating the two class action lawsuits as In re BioScrip, Inc., Securities Litigation, No. 13-cv-6922 (AJN) and appointing an interim lead plaintiff. The Company denies any allegations of wrongdoing in the consolidated class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on February 19, 2014 against the Company, certain of its directors and officers, certain underwriters in the Company’s April 2013 underwritten public offering of its common stock, and a certain stockholder of the Company. The consolidated complaint is brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of the Company’s securities between November 9, 2012 and November 6, 2013, inclusive, and persons and entities who purchased the Company’s securities pursuant or traceable to two underwritten public offerings of the Company’s common stock conducted in April 2013, and August 2013. The consolidated complaint alleges generally that the defendants made material misstatements and/or failed to disclose matters related to the Legacy Division’s distribution of Novartis Pharmaceutical Corporation’s product Exjade® (the “Medication”) as well as the Company’s PBM Services segment. The consolidated complaint asserts claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. All defendants in the case moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint on April 28, 2014. On March 31, 2015, the SDNY granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motions to dismiss. On April 14, 2015, a motion to reconsider a portion of the denial of the motions to dismiss was filed on behalf of all the remaining defendants. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to that motion on April 28, 2015. On June 5, 2015, the SDNY denied the defendants’ motion to reconsider.

On September 25, 2015, the parties entered mediation concerning all pending claims. In October 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle all claims in the action (the “Proposed Settlement”), the terms and conditions of which were filed with the SDNY on December 18, 2015. The Company has agreed to the Proposed Settlement without any admission of liability or wrongdoing and solely in order to avoid the costs, distraction, and uncertainty of litigation.

On February 11, 2016, the Court granted preliminary approval for the settlement, certified a class of plaintiffs for settlement only, approved of the form of and mailing of notice to the stockholder class, and scheduled a final fairness hearing for June 13, 2016. Following preliminary approval, in accordance with the terms of the Proposed Settlement, the Company and its insurance carriers paid the amount of the settlement into an escrow fund. The Company’s contribution was not material, and the Company does not believe the contribution will have a material effect on results of operations, financial position, liquidity or capital resources. The Proposed Settlement remains subject to final court approval. Until final approval is obtained and until any other conditions precedent in the Proposed Settlement are completed or satisfied, there can be no assurance that this matter will in fact be resolved pursuant to the terms of the Proposed Settlement.

Government Regulation

Various federal and state laws and regulations affecting the healthcare industry do or may impact the Company’s current and planned operations, including, without limitation, federal and state laws prohibiting kickbacks in government health programs, federal and state antitrust and drug distribution laws, and a wide variety of consumer protection, insurance and other state laws and regulations. While management believes the Company is in substantial compliance with all existing laws and regulations material to the operation of its business, such laws and regulations are often uncertain in their application to our business practices as they evolve and are subject to rapid change. As controversies continue to arise in the healthcare industry, federal and state regulation and enforcement priorities in this area can be expected to increase, the impact of which cannot be predicted.

From time to time, the Company responds to investigatory subpoenas and requests for information from governmental agencies and private parties. The Company cannot predict with certainty what the outcome of any of the foregoing might be. While the Company believes it is in substantial compliance with all laws, rules and regulations that affects its business and operations, there can be no assurance that the Company will not be subject to scrutiny or challenge under one or more existing laws or that any such challenge would not be successful. Any such challenge, whether or not successful, could have a material effect upon the Company’s Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements. A violation of the Federal anti-kickback statute, for example, may result in substantial criminal penalties, as well as suspension or exclusion from the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Moreover, the costs and expenses associated with defending these actions, even where successful, can be significant. Further, there can be no assurance the Company will be able to obtain or maintain any of the regulatory approvals that may be required to operate its business, and the failure to do so could have a material effect on the Company’s Unaudited Consolidated Financial Statements.