COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2017
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 complaint seeks both money damages and injunctive relief. On December 7, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Walgreens filed an answering brief on January 11, 2016 and the Defendants filed a reply on January 25, 2016. 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 2012 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. On December 8, 2016, the parties submitted the dispute to an arbitrator. On December 28, 2016, the arbitrator rendered its decision, finding that the Company had not violated the non-compete, except for certain limited sales of oral oncology, HIV and transplant pharmaceuticals, constituting approximately 3 percent of the total sales that Walgreens claimed were made in violation of the agreement. The arbitrator also concluded that Walgreens was not entitled to recover its lost profits or lost revenues as a result of any such sales. Despite that ruling, the arbitrator awarded Walgreens $5.8 million in damages, or approximately 20 percent of the total amount requested. Such amount is included as a component of Accrued expenses and other current liabilities within the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2017 (unaudited) and December 31, 2016. The Company believes that arbitrator’s damages award ignored applicable law, contradicted the arbitrator’s liability findings and exceeded the scope of the arbitrator’s authority in light of both parties’ arbitration submissions. Accordingly, on January 13, 2017, the Company filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award. On February 10, 2017, Walgreens opposed the Company’s motion and filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award and for other relief. On July 19, 2017, the Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied Walgreens’ request for injunctive relief. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself, but the Company can provide no assurance that any continued challenge to the award will be successful. Derivative Lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery On May 7, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Derivative Complaint”) by the Park Employees’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (the “Derivative Plaintiff”). 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 current and 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. On May 31, 2016, the court determined that the Derivative Plaintiff’s claims could not proceed as pled but granted the Derivative Plaintiff thirty days in which to make a motion to amend the Derivative Complaint. The court reserved decision on the motion to dismiss and on June 29, 2016, the Derivative Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On October 10, 2016, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and the Court heard oral argument on January 19, 2017. On April 18, 2017, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 12, 2017. 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. 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 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 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 complaint seeks both money damages and injunctive relief. On December 7, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case. Walgreens filed an answering brief on January 11, 2016 and the Defendants filed a reply on January 25, 2016. 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 2012 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. On December 8, 2016, the parties submitted the dispute to an arbitrator. On December 28, 2016, the arbitrator rendered its decision, finding that the Company had not violated the non-compete, except for certain limited sales of oral oncology, HIV and transplant pharmaceuticals, constituting approximately 3 percent of the total sales that Walgreens claimed were made in violation of the agreement. The arbitrator also concluded that Walgreens was not entitled to recover its lost profits or lost revenues as a result of any such sales. Despite that ruling, the arbitrator awarded Walgreens $5.8 million in damages, or approximately 20 percent of the total amount requested. Such amount is included as a component of Accrued expenses and other current liabilities within the Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2017 (unaudited) and December 31, 2016. The Company believes that arbitrator’s damages award ignored applicable law, contradicted the arbitrator’s liability findings and exceeded the scope of the arbitrator’s authority in light of both parties’ arbitration submissions. Accordingly, on January 13, 2017, the Company filed a motion to vacate the arbitration award. On February 10, 2017, Walgreens opposed the Company’s motion and filed a motion to confirm the arbitration award and for other relief. On July 19, 2017, the Court confirmed the arbitration award and denied Walgreens’ request for injunctive relief. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself, but the Company can provide no assurance that any continued challenge to the award will be successful.

Derivative Lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery

On May 7, 2015, a derivative complaint was filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the “Derivative Complaint”) by the Park Employees’ & Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity & Benefit Fund of Chicago (the “Derivative Plaintiff”). 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 current and 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. On May 31, 2016, the court determined that the Derivative Plaintiff’s claims could not proceed as pled but granted the Derivative Plaintiff thirty days in which to make a motion to amend the Derivative Complaint. The court reserved decision on the motion to dismiss and on June 29, 2016, the Derivative Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. On October 10, 2016, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint and the Court heard oral argument on January 19, 2017. On April 18, 2017, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on May 12, 2017.

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.

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 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 Consolidated Financial Statements.