17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Construction and Other Capital Commitments. Pursuant to a hospital purchase agreement in effect as of December 31, 2017, the Company is required to build replacement facilities in La Porte, Indiana and Knox, Indiana. The estimated construction costs, including equipment costs, for the La Porte and Starke replacement facilities are currently estimated to be approximately $125 million and $15 million, respectively. No costs have been incurred to date on these facilities. In addition, under other purchase agreements outstanding at December 31, 2017, the Company has committed to spend approximately $289 million for costs such as capital improvements, equipment, selected leases and physician recruiting. These commitments are required to be fulfilled generally over a five to seven year period after acquisition. Through December 31, 2017, the Company has spent approximately $135 million related to these commitments.

Physician Recruiting Commitments. As part of its physician recruitment strategy, the Company provides income guarantee agreements to certain physicians who agree to relocate to its communities and commit to remain in practice there. Under such agreements, the Company is required to make payments to the physicians in excess of the amounts they earned in their practice up to the amount of the income guarantee. These income guarantee periods are typically for 12 months. Such payments are recoverable by the Company from physicians who do not fulfill their commitment period, which is typically three years, to the respective community. At December 31, 2017, the maximum potential amount of future payments under these guarantees in excess of the liability recorded is $31 million.

Professional Liability Claims. As part of the Company’s business of owning and operating hospitals, it is subject to legal actions alleging liability on its part. The Company accrues for losses resulting from such liability claims, as well as loss adjustment expenses that are out-of-pocket and directly related to such liability claims. These direct out-of-pocket expenses include fees of outside counsel and experts. The Company does not accrue for costs that are part of corporate overhead, such as the costs of in-house legal and risk management departments. The losses resulting from professional liability claims primarily consist of estimates for known claims, as well as estimates for incurred but not reported claims. The estimates are based on specific claim facts, historical claim reporting and payment patterns, the nature and level of hospital operations and actuarially determined projections. The actuarially determined projections are based on the Company’s actual claim data, including historic reporting and payment patterns which have been gathered over an approximate 20-year period. As discussed below, since the Company purchases excess insurance on a claims-made basis that transfers risk to third-party insurers, the liability it accrues does include an amount for the losses covered by its excess insurance. The Company also records a receivable for the expected reimbursement of losses covered by excess insurance. Since the Company believes that the amount and timing of its future claims payments are reliably determinable, it discounts the amount accrued for losses resulting from professional liability claims using the risk-free interest rate corresponding to the timing of expected payments.

The net present value of the projected payments was discounted using a weighted-average risk-free rate of 2.2%, 1.8% and 1.6% in 2017, 2016 and 2015, respectively. This liability is adjusted for new claims information in the period such information becomes known. The Company’s estimated liability for professional and general liability claims was $711 million and $788 million as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The estimated undiscounted claims liability was $760 million and $843 million as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively. The current portion of the liability for professional and general liability claims was $115 million and $130 million as of December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and is included in other accrued liabilities in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets, with the long-term portion recorded in other long-term liabilities. Professional malpractice expense includes the losses resulting from professional liability claims and loss adjustment expense, as well as paid excess insurance premiums, and is presented within other operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of (loss) income.

The Company’s processes for obtaining and analyzing claims and incident data are standardized across all of its hospitals and have been consistent for many years. The Company monitors the outcomes of the medical care services that it provides and for each reported claim, the Company obtains various information concerning the facts and circumstances related to that claim. In addition, the Company routinely monitors current key statistics and volume indicators in its assessment of utilizing historical trends. The average lag period between claim occurrence and payment of a final settlement is between three and four years, although the facts and circumstances of individual claims could result in the timing of such payments being different from this average. Since claims are paid promptly after settlement with the claimant is reached, settled claims represent approximately 1.0% of the total liability at the end of any period.

For purposes of estimating its individual claim accruals, the Company utilizes specific claim information, including the nature of the claim, the expected claim amount, the year in which the claim occurred and the laws of the jurisdiction in which the claim occurred. Once the case accruals for known claims are determined, information is stratified by loss layers and retentions, accident years, reported years, geography and claims relating to the acquired HMA hospitals versus claims relating to the Company’s other hospitals. Several actuarial methods are used against this data to produce estimates of ultimate paid losses and reserves for incurred but not reported claims. Each of these methods uses company-specific historical claims data and other information. This company-specific data includes information regarding the Company’s business, including historical paid losses and loss adjustment expenses, historical and current case loss reserves, actual and projected hospital statistical data, a variety of hospital census information, employed physician information, professional liability retentions for each policy year, geographic information and other data.

Based on these analyses the Company determines its estimate of the professional liability claims. The determination of management’s estimate, including the preparation of the reserve analysis that supports such estimate, involves subjective judgment of the management. Changes in reserving data or the trends and factors that influence reserving data may signal fundamental shifts in the Company’s future claim development patterns or may simply reflect single-period anomalies. Even if a change reflects a fundamental shift, the full extent of the change may not become evident until years later. Moreover, since the Company’s methods and models use different types of data and the Company selects its liability from the results of all of these methods, it typically cannot quantify the precise impact of such factors on its estimates of the liability. Due to the Company’s standardized and consistent processes for handling claims and the long history and depth of company-specific data, the Company’s methodologies have produced reliably determinable estimates of ultimate paid losses.

The Company is primarily self-insured for professional liability claims; however, the Company obtains excess insurance that transfers the risk of loss to a third-party insurer for claims in excess of self-insured retentions. The Company’s excess insurance is underwritten on a claims-made basis. For claims reported prior to June 1, 2002, substantially all of the Company’s professional and general liability risks were subject to a less than $1 million per occurrence self-insured retention and for claims reported from June 1, 2002 through June 1, 2003, these self-insured retentions were $2 million per occurrence. Substantially all claims reported after June 1, 2003 and before June 1, 2005 are self-insured up to $4 million per claim. Substantially all claims reported on or after June 1, 2005 and before June 1, 2014 are self-insured up to $5 million per claim. Substantially all claims reported on or after June 1, 2014 are self-insured up to $10 million per claim. Management on occasion has selectively increased the insured risk at certain hospitals based upon insurance pricing and other factors and may continue that practice in the future. Excess insurance for all hospitals has been purchased through commercial insurance companies and generally covers the Company for liabilities in excess of the self-insured retentions. The excess coverage consists of multiple layers of insurance, the sum of which totals up to $95 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims reported on or after June 1, 2003, up to $145 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims reported on or after January 1, 2008, up to $195 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims reported on or after June 1, 2010, and up to $220 million per occurrence and in the aggregate for claims reported on or after June 1, 2015. In addition, for integrated occurrence malpractice claims, there is an additional $50 million of excess coverage for claims reported on or after June 1, 2014 and an additional $75 million of excess coverage for claims reported on or after June 1, 2015. For certain policy years prior to June 1, 2014, if the first aggregate layer of excess coverage becomes fully utilized, then the Company’s self-insured retention will increase to $10 million per claim for any subsequent claims in that policy year until the Company’s total aggregate coverage is met.

Effective June 1, 2014, the hospitals acquired from HMA were insured on a claims-made basis as described above and through commercial insurance companies as described above for substantially all claims reported on or after June 1, 2014 except for physician-related claims with an occurrence date prior to June 1, 2014. Prior to June 1, 2014, the former HMA hospitals obtained insurance coverage through a wholly-owned captive insurance subsidiary and a risk retention group subsidiary which are domiciled in the Cayman Islands and South Carolina, respectively. Those insurance subsidiaries, which are collectively referred to as the “Insurance Subsidiaries,” provided (i) claims-made coverage to all of the former HMA hospitals and (ii) occurrence-basis coverage to most of the physicians employed by the former HMA hospitals. The employed physicians not covered by the Insurance Subsidiaries generally maintained claims-made policies with unrelated third party insurance companies. To mitigate the exposure of the program covering the former HMA hospitals and other healthcare facilities, the Insurance Subsidiaries bought claims-made reinsurance policies from unrelated third parties for claims above self-retention levels of $10 million or $15 million per claim, depending on the policy year.

Effective January 1, 2008, the hospitals acquired from Triad were insured on a claims-made basis as described above and through commercial insurance companies as described above for substantially all claims occurring on or after January 1, 2002 and reported on or after January 1, 2008. Substantially all losses for the former Triad hospitals in periods prior to May 1, 1999 were insured through a wholly-owned insurance subsidiary of HCA, Triad’s owner prior to that time, and excess loss policies maintained by HCA. HCA has agreed to indemnify the former Triad hospitals in respect of claims covered by such insurance policies arising prior to May 1, 1999. After May 1, 1999 through December 31, 2006, the former Triad hospitals obtained insurance coverage on a claims incurred basis from HCA’s wholly-owned insurance subsidiary, with excess coverage obtained from other carriers that is subject to certain deductibles. Effective for claims incurred after December 31, 2006, Triad began insuring its claims from $1 million to $5 million through its wholly-owned captive insurance company, replacing the coverage provided by HCA. Substantially all claims occurring during 2007 were self-insured up to $10 million per claim.

Legal Matters. 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 very large or 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.

In connection with the spin-off of QHC, the Company agreed to indemnify QHC for certain liabilities relating to outcomes or events occurring prior to April 29, 2016, the closing date of the spin-off, including (i) certain claims and proceedings that were known to be outstanding at or prior to the consummation of the spin-off and involved multiple facilities and (ii) certain claims, proceedings and investigations by governmental authorities or private plaintiffs related to activities occurring at or related to QHC’s healthcare facilities prior to the closing date of the spin-off, but only to the extent, in the case of clause (ii), that such claims are covered by insurance policies maintained by the Company, including professional liability and employer practices. In this regard, the Company continues to be responsible for HMA Legal Matters (as defined below) covered by the CVR agreement that relate to QHC’s business, and any amounts payable by the Company in connection therewith will continue to reduce the amount payable by the Company in respect of the CVRs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company is not required to indemnify QHC in respect of any claims or proceedings arising out of or related to the business operations of Quorum Health Resources, LLC at any time or QHC’s compliance with the corporate integrity agreement. Subsequent to the spin-off of QHC, the Office of the Inspector General provided the Company with written assurance that it would look solely at QHC for compliance for its facilities under the Company’s Corporate Integrity Agreement; however, the Office of the Inspector General declined to enter into a separate corporate integrity agreement with QHC. In addition, on August 4, 2017, the Company initiated an arbitration against QHC for unpaid amounts due from QHC related to two transition services agreements. QHC filed a counterclaim, claiming breach of contract and tortious interference, among others. The arbitration is set to begin June 18, 2018. The Company believes the counterclaim is without merit and will vigorously defend the case.

HMA Legal Matters and Related CVR

The CVR agreement entitles the holder to receive a one-time cash payment of up to $1.00 per CVR, subject to downward adjustment based on the final resolution of certain litigation, investigations (whether formal or informal, including subpoenas), or other actions or proceedings related to HMA or its affiliates existing on or prior to July 29, 2013 (the date of the Company’s merger agreement with HMA) as more specifically provided in the CVR agreement (all such matters are referred to as the “HMA Legal Matters”), which include, but are not limited to, investigation and litigation matters as previously disclosed by HMA in public filings with the SEC and/or as described in more detail below. The adjustment reducing the ultimate amount paid to holders of the CVR is determined based on the amount of losses incurred by the Company in connection with the HMA Legal Matters as more specifically provided in the CVR agreement, which generally includes the amount paid for damages, costs, fees and expenses (including, without limitation, attorneys’ fees and expenses), and all fines, penalties, settlement amounts, indemnification obligations and other liabilities (all such losses are referred to as “HMA Losses”). If the aggregate amount of HMA Losses exceeds a deductible of $18 million, then the amount payable in respect of each CVR shall be reduced (but not below zero) by an amount equal to the quotient obtained by dividing: (a) the product of (i) all losses in excess of the deductible and (ii) 90%; by (b) the number of CVRs outstanding on the date on which final resolution of the existing litigation occurs. There are 264,544,053 CVRs outstanding as of the date hereof. If total HMA Losses (including HMA Losses that have occurred to date as noted in the table below) exceed approximately $312 million, then the holders of the CVRs will not be entitled to any payment in respect of the CVRs.

The CVRs do not have a finite payment date. Any payments the Company makes under the CVR agreement will be payable within 60 days after the final resolution of the HMA Legal Matters. The CVRs are unsecured obligations of CHS and all payments under the CVRs will be subordinated in right of payment to the prior payment in full of all of the Company’s senior obligations (as defined in the CVR agreement), which include outstanding indebtedness of the Company (subject to certain exceptions set forth in the CVR agreement) and the HMA Losses. The CVR agreement permits the Company to acquire all or some of the CVRs, whether in open market transactions, private transactions or otherwise. As of December 31, 2017, the Company had acquired no CVRs.

The following table represents the impact of legal expenses paid or incurred and settlements paid or deemed final as of December 31, 2017 and 2016 on the amounts owed to CVR holders (in millions):



			Allocation of Expenses and Settlements Paid
							Reduction to
	Total Expenses				Company's		Amount Owed
	and Settlement				Responsibility		to CVR Holders
	Cost		Deductible		at 10%		at 90%
As of December 31, 2015	$	58	$	18	$	4	$	36
Settlements paid		1		-		-		1
Legal expenses incurred
and/or paid during
the year ended
December 31, 2016		3		-		-		3
As of December 31, 2016		62		18		4		40
Settlements paid		-		-		-		-
Legal expenses incurred
and/or paid during the
year ended
December 31, 2017		2		-		-		2
As of December 31, 2017	$	64	$	18	$	4	$	42

Amounts owed to CVR holders are dependent on the ultimate resolution of the HMA Legal Matters and determination of HMA Losses incurred. The settlement of any or all of the claims and expenses incurred on behalf of the Company in defending itself will (subject to the deductible) reduce the amounts owed to the CVR holders.

Underlying the CVR agreement are a number of claims included in the HMA Legal Matters asserted against HMA. The Company has recorded a liability in connection with those claims as part of the acquired assets and liabilities at the date of acquisition pursuant to the provisions of Financial Accounting Standards Board Accounting Standards Codification Topic 805 “Business Combinations.” For the estimate of the Company’s liabilities associated with the HMA Legal Matters that will be covered by the CVR and were not previously accrued by HMA, the Company recorded a liability of $284 million as part of the acquisition accounting for the HMA merger based on the Company’s estimate of fair value of such liabilities as of the date of acquisition. There was a $4 million increase in the liability during the year ended December 31, 2017 and the estimated fair value of such liabilities, after consideration of amounts paid and current estimates of valuation inputs, was $256 million as of December 31, 2017, which is recorded in other long-term liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. As of December 31, 2017, there is currently no accrual recorded for the probable contingency claims underlying the CVR agreement. The estimated liability for probable contingency claims underlying the CVR agreement that was previously recorded by HMA, and reflected in the purchase accounting for HMA as an acquired liability has been settled and was paid during the year ended December 31, 2015. In addition, although legal fees are not included in the amounts currently accrued, such legal fees are taken into account in determining HMA Losses under the CVR agreement. Certain significant HMA Legal Matters underlying these liabilities are discussed in greater detail below.

HMA Matters Recorded at Fair Value

Medicare/Medicaid Billing Lawsuits

Beginning during the week of December 16, 2013, eleven qui tam lawsuits filed by private individuals against HMA were unsealed in various United States district courts. The United States has elected to intervene in all or part of eight of these matters; namely U.S. ex rel. Craig Brummer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Brummer”); U.S. ex rel. Ralph D. Williams v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District Georgia) (“Williams”); U.S. ex rel. Scott H. Plantz, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., et al. (Northern District Illinois) (“Plantz”); U.S. ex rel. Thomas L. Mason, M.D. et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Western District North Carolina) (“Mason”); U.S. ex rel. Jacqueline Meyer, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc., Gary Newsome et al. (“Jacqueline Meyer”) (District of South Carolina); U.S. ex rel. George Miller, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) (“Miller”); U.S. ex rel. Bradley Nurkin v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Middle District of Florida) (“Nurkin”); and U.S. ex rel. Paul Meyer v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Southern District Florida) (“Paul Meyer”). The United States has elected to intervene with respect to allegations in these cases that certain HMA hospitals inappropriately admitted patients and then submitted reimbursement claims for treating those individuals to federal healthcare programs in violation of the False Claims Act or that certain HMA hospitals had inappropriate financial relationships with physicians which violated the Stark law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and the False Claims Act. Certain of these complaints also allege the same actions violated various state laws which prohibit false claims. The United States has declined to intervene in three of the eleven matters, namely U.S. ex rel. Anita France, et al. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“France”) which involved allegations of wrongful billing and was settled; U.S. ex rel. Sandra Simmons v. Health Management Associates, Inc. et al. (Eastern District Oklahoma) (“Simmons”) which alleges unnecessary surgery by an employed physician and which was settled as to all allegations except alleged wrongful termination; and U.S. ex rel. David Napoliello, M.D. v. Health Management Associates, Inc. (Middle District Florida) (“Napoliello”) which alleges inappropriate admissions. On April 3, 2014, the Multi District Litigation Panel ordered the transfer and consolidation for pretrial proceedings of the eight intervened cases, plus the Napoliello matter, to the District of the District of Columbia under the name In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc. Qui Tam Litigation. On June 2, 2014, the court entered a stay of this matter until October 6, 2014, which was subsequently extended until February 27, 2015, May 27, 2015, September 25, 2015, January 25, 2016, May 25, 2016, September 26, 2016, December 27, 2016, April 27, 2017, August 28, 2017, December 18, 2017 and now until March 19, 2018. The Company intends to defend against the allegations in these matters, but also continues to cooperate with the government in the ongoing investigation of these allegations. The Company has been in discussions with the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) regarding the resolutions of these matters. During the first quarter of 2015, the Company was informed that the Criminal Division continues to investigate former executive-level employees of HMA, and continues to consider whether any HMA entities should be held criminally liable for the acts of the former HMA employees. The Company is voluntarily cooperating with these inquiries and has not been served with any subpoenas or other legal process.

Other Probable Contingencies

Becker v. Community Health Systems, Inc. d/b/a Community Health Systems Professional Services Corporation d/b/a Community Health Systems d/b/a Community Health Systems PSC, Inc. d/b/a Rockwood Clinic P.S. and Rockwood Clinic, P.S. (Superior Court, Spokane, Washington). This suit was filed on February 29, 2012, by a former chief financial officer at Rockwood Clinic in Spokane, Washington. Becker claims he was wrongfully terminated for allegedly refusing to certify a budget for Rockwood Clinic in 2012. On February 29, 2012, he also filed an administrative complaint with the Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration alleging that he is a whistleblower under Sarbanes-Oxley, which was dismissed by the agency and was appealed to an administrative law judge for a hearing that occurred on January 19-26, 2016. In a decision dated November 9, 2016, the law judge awarded Becker approximately $1.9 million for front pay, back pay and emotional damages with attorney fees to be later determined. The Company has appealed the award to the Administrative Review Board and is awaiting its decision. At a hearing on July 27, 2012, the trial court dismissed Community Health Systems, Inc. from the state case and subsequently certified the state case for an interlocutory appeal of the denial to dismiss his employer and the management company. The appellate court accepted the interlocutory appeal, and it was argued on April 30, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the court denied the Company’s appeal. On October 20, 2014, the Company filed a petition to review the denial with the Washington Supreme Court. The appeal was accepted and oral argument was heard on June 9, 2015. On September 15, 2015, the court denied the Company’s appeal and remanded to the trial court; a previous trial setting of September 12, 2016 has been vacated and not reset. The Company continues to vigorously defend these actions.

Summary of Recorded Amounts

The table below presents a reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability balances (in millions) during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, with respect to the Company’s fair value determination in connection with HMA Legal Matters that were not previously accrued by HMA, and the remaining contingencies of the Company in respect of which an accrual has been recorded. In addition, future legal fees (which are expensed as incurred) and costs related to possible indemnification and criminal investigation matters associated with the HMA Legal Matters have not been accrued or included in the table below. Furthermore, although not accrued, such costs, if incurred, will be taken into account in determining the total amount of reductions applied to the amounts owed to CVR holders.



	CVR-Related		Other
	Liability		Probable
	at Fair Value		Contingencies
Balance as of December 31, 2015	$	261	$	10
(Income) expense		(8)		14
Reserve for insured claim		-		1
Cash payments		(1)		(11)
Balance as of December 31, 2016		252		14
Expense		4		14
Cash payments		-		(14)
Balance as of December 31, 2017	$	256	$	14

With respect to the “Other Probable Contingencies” referenced in the chart above, in accordance with applicable accounting guidance, the Company establishes a liability for litigation, regulatory and governmental matters for which, based on information currently available, the Company believes that a negative outcome is known or is probable and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable. For all such matters (whether or not discussed in this contingencies footnote), such amounts have been recorded in other accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet and are included in the table above in the “Other Probable Contingencies” column. Due to the uncertainties and difficulty in predicting the ultimate resolution of these contingencies, the actual amount could differ from the estimated amount reflected as a liability on the consolidated balance sheet.

In the aggregate, attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred but not included in the table above related to probable contingencies, and CVR-related contingencies accounted for at fair value, totaled $2 million and $4 million for the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016, respectively, and are included in other operating expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of (loss) income.

Matters for which an Outcome Cannot be Assessed

For the following legal matter, due to the uncertainties surrounding the ultimate outcome of the case, the Company cannot at this time assess what the outcome may be and is further unable to determine any estimate of loss or range of loss.

Class Action Shareholder Federal Securities Cases. Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on behalf of purchasers of the Company’s common stock between July 27, 2006 and April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in artificially inflated prices for the Company’s common stock. In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs’ counsel. In lieu of ruling on the Company’s motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a first amended consolidated class action complaint, which was filed on October 5, 2015. The Company’s motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and oral argument was held on April 11, 2016. The Company’s motion to dismiss was granted on June 16, 2016 and on June 27, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The matter was heard on May 3, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Sixth Circuit reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the case and remanded it to the District Court. The Company filed a renewed partial motion to dismiss on February 9, 2018. The Company believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will vigorously defend this case.