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 condensed 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 Quorum Health Corporation (“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. 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.

2011 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, which was denied by the District Court on September 24, 2018. The Company also filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court on April 18, 2018 seeking review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision. The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari on October 1, 2018. The District Court granted the Plaintiff’s motion for class certification on July 26, 2019. The Company filed a petition for permission to appeal the District Court’s class certification order in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 9, 2019, and that petition was denied on October 23, 2019. Trial for this matter was set for December 1, 2020. On January 21, 2020, the Company and the Plaintiff filed a stipulation of settlement indicating to the District Court that the parties had reached agreement on the principal terms of a settlement for $53 million, which was recorded by the Company during the three months ended December 31, 2019. The settlement received preliminary approval from the District Court on January 30, 2020. On June 22, 2020, the District Court granted final approval of the settlement and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice.

The table below presents a reconciliation of the beginning and ending liability balances (in millions) during the six months ended June 30, 2020, with respect to the Company’s determination of the contingencies of the Company in respect of which an accrual has been recorded.

	Probable
	Contingencies
Balance as of December 31, 2019	$	68
Expense		10
Reserve for insured claim		10
Cash payments		(63	)
Balance as of June 30, 2020	$	25

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 condensed consolidated balance sheet and are included in the table above. 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 condensed consolidated balance sheet.

In the aggregate, attorneys’ fees and other costs incurred but not included in the table above related to probable contingencies and Contingent Value Right-related contingencies totaled $2 million for the three months ended June 30, 2019, and $1 million and $4 million for the six months ended June 30, 2020 and 2019, respectively, and are included in other operating expenses in the accompanying condensed consolidated statements of income (loss). There was income of less than $1 million for the three months ended June 30, 2020 related to the above attorneys’ fees and other costs.

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 reasonably estimate any loss or range of loss.

Steadfast Insurance Company, et al v. Community Health Systems, Inc., CHS/Community Health Systems, Inc., CHSPSC, LLC and Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC; Community Health Systems, Inc., et al v. Steadfast Insurance Company, et al; Anne Sperling, et al v. Community Insurance Group SPC, Ltd. These cases are filed in the Superior Court for the State of Delaware, the Chancery Court for the State of Delaware, and the First Judicial District Court for the State of New Mexico, respectively, and involve insurance coverage disputes related to a $73 million judgment rendered against Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC in Anne Sperling, et al v. Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC (“Sperling I”). The first case was brought by Steadfast Insurance Company in Delaware Superior Court seeking a declaration that the Sperling I judgment is not a covered loss as defined by the insurance policies that are the subject of the case. The second case, filed by the Company in Delaware Chancery Court, seeks reformation of the subject policies. The third case (“Sperling II”), filed by the plaintiffs in Sperling I, seeks recovery from Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC’s insurers for the judgment awarded the plaintiffs in their separate, previous action against Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC. The Steadfast complaint was served on November 30, 2018. On December 13, 2018, Admiral Insurance Company, Endurance Specialty Insurance Ltd, and Illinois Union Insurance Company moved to intervene in the suit as petitioners. The Company has initiated counterclaims against each insurer in that case, including for bad faith against Steadfast. The Company filed the Community Health Systems complaint on January 22, 2020. Sperling II was filed on July 24, 2019. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to add Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC as a defendant in that action on May 21, 2020, and Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC filed a third party action against certain insurer defendants in the case on July 6, 2020. The judgment in Sperling I against Pecos Valley of New Mexico, LLC, which was rendered on September 5, 2018, in the First Judicial Court of the State of New Mexico, is currently on appeal to the Court of Appeals of the State of New Mexico. Consolidated trial of the Steadfast and Community Health Systems, Inc. cases is set for July 26, 2021. The Company believes the insurers’ claims in the Steadfast, Community Health Systems, Inc. and Sperling II litigation are without merit and will vigorously defend and prosecute those cases.