COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Legal Proceedings

The Company is a party to various legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings incidental to its business. Based on current knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, including the matters described herein, will have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial position or liquidity of the Company. However, in light of the inherent uncertainties involved in pending legal, regulatory and governmental matters, some of which are beyond the Company’s control, and the indeterminate damages sought in some of these matters, an adverse outcome in one or more of these matters could be material to the Company’s results of operations or cash flows for any particular reporting period.

With respect to all legal, regulatory and governmental proceedings, the Company considers the likelihood of a negative outcome. If the Company determines the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to any such matter is probable and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated, the Company records an accrual for the estimated loss for the expected outcome of the matter. If the likelihood of a negative outcome with respect to material matters is reasonably possible and the Company is able to determine an estimate of the possible loss or a range of loss, whether in excess of a related accrued liability or where there is no accrued liability, the Company discloses the estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. However, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of loss in some instances based on the significant uncertainties involved in, and/or the preliminary nature of, certain legal, regulatory and governmental matters.

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. 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. Following that decision, the parties entered into a global settlement of all disputes related to the non-compete provisions and the lawsuit was dismissed. The Company paid the settlement amount in August 2017.

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 alleged 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 contended that certain defendants aided and abetted those alleged breaches. The damages sought were not quantified but included, among other things, claims for money damages, restitution, disgorgement, equitable relief, reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses, and interest. The Derivative Complaint incorporated the same factual allegations from In re BioScrip, Inc., Securities Litigation. On April 18, 2017, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss, and on November 27, 2017 the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. Additional demands and lawsuits related to the same facts and circumstances, however, could be pursued in the future. In that event, there is no assurance that any defenses 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 may also seek indemnification from the Company pursuant to certain indemnification agreements, for which there may be no insurance coverage.

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.

On December 18, 2017, a commercial payor of the Company sent a letter that claimed an alleged breach of the Company’s obligation under its provider contracts. No legal proceeding has been filed. The Company is not able to estimate the amount of any possible loss. The Company believes this claim is without merit and intends to vigorously defend against this claim if any such legal proceeding is commenced.

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.

Leases

The Company leases its facilities and certain equipment under various operating leases with third parties. The majority of these leases contain escalation clauses that increase base rent payments based upon either the Consumer Price Index or an agreed upon schedule.

In addition, the Company utilizes capital leases agreements with third parties to obtain certain assets such as telecommunications equipment and vehicles. Interest rates on capital leases are both fixed and variable and range from 3% to 7%.

As of December 31, 2017, future minimum lease payments under operating and capital leases were as follows (in thousands):



	Operating Leases		Capital Leases		Total
2018	$	7,739	$	1,722	$	9,461
2019	5,010		754		5,764
2020	3,688		387		4,075
2021	2,559		—		2,559
2022	1,829		—		1,829
2023 and Thereafter	4,891		—		4,891
Total Future Minimum Lease Payments	$	25,716	$	2,863	$	28,579

Rent expense for leased facilities and equipment was approximately $7.7 million, $7.3 million and $7.2 million for the years ended December 31, 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively

Purchase Commitments

As of December 31, 2017, the Company had no outstanding purchase commitments.