Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Lease Guarantees Between 1991 and 1997, the Company sold or spun off a number of subsidiaries, including Bob’s Stores, Linens ‘n Things, Marshalls, Kay-Bee Toys, Wilsons, This End Up and Footstar. In many cases, when a former subsidiary leased a store, the Company provided a guarantee of the store’s lease obligations. When the subsidiaries were disposed of, the Company’s guarantees remained in place, although each initial purchaser has indemnified the Company for any lease obligations the Company was required to satisfy. If any of the purchasers or any of the former subsidiaries were to become insolvent and failed to make the required payments under a store lease, the Company could be required to satisfy these obligations. As of March 31, 2013, the Company guaranteed approximately 71 such store leases (excluding the lease guarantees related to Linens ‘n Things), with the maximum remaining lease term extending through 2024. Management believes the ultimate disposition of any of the remaining guarantees will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or future cash flows. Legal Matters The Company is a party to legal proceedings, investigations and claims in the ordinary course of its business, including the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company’s financial position. Our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties, including, among other factors: (i) the procedural status of pending matters; (ii) whether class action status is sought and certified; (iii) whether asserted claims or allegations will survive dispositive motion practice; (iv) the extent of potential damages, fines or penalties, which are often unspecified or indeterminate; (v) the impact of discovery on the legal process; (vi) whether novel or unsettled legal theories are at issue; (vii) the settlement posture of the parties, and/or (viii) in the case of certain government agency investigations, whether a sealed qui tam lawsuit (“whistleblower” action) has been filed and whether the government agency makes a decision to intervene in the lawsuit following investigation. Except as otherwise noted, the Company cannot predict with certainty the timing or outcome of the legal matters described below, and is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for these matters. Caremark (the term “Caremark” being used herein to generally refer to any one or more PBM subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable) is a defendant in a qui tam lawsuit initially filed by a relator on behalf of various state and federal government agencies in Texas federal court in 1999. The case was unsealed in May 2005. The case seeks monetary damages and alleges that Caremark’s processing of Medicaid and certain other government claims on behalf of its clients (which allegedly resulted in underpayments from our clients to the applicable government agencies) on one of Caremark’s adjudication platforms violates applicable federal or state false claims acts and fraud statutes. The United States and the States of Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana and California intervened in the lawsuit, but Tennessee and Florida withdrew from the lawsuit in August 2006 and May 2007, respectively. Thereafter, in 2008, the Company prevailed on several motions for partial summary judgment and, following an appellate ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011 that affirmed in part and reversed in part these prior rulings, the claims asserted in the case against Caremark have been substantially narrowed. In December 2007, the Company received a document subpoena from the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), requesting information relating to the processing of Medicaid and other government agency claims on a different adjudication platform of Caremark. The Company has been conducting discussions with the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the OIG regarding a possible settlement of these legal matters. In April 2009, the State of Texas filed a purported civil enforcement action against Caremark for injunctive relief, damages and civil penalties in Travis County, Texas alleging that Caremark violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act and other state laws based on our processing of Texas Medicaid claims on behalf of PBM clients on one of Caremark's adjudication platforms. In September 2011, the Company prevailed on a motion for partial summary judgment against the State of Texas and narrowed the remaining claims in the lawsuit. In October 2009 and October 2010, the Company received civil investigative demands from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas requesting, respectively, information produced under the OIG subpoena described above and other information related to the processing of Medicaid claims. These civil investigative demands state that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas is investigating allegations currently pending under seal relating to two other adjudication platforms of Caremark. In March 2013, the Company settled all matters related to Caremark's processing of Texas Medicaid claims. Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel. The defendants have filed a notice of appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court and the plaintiffs have filed a notice of cross-appeal. The proceedings in the trial court are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court. Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case. In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel, including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation. In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against directors and officers of the corporation. This lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related securities class action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed pending the outcome of this appeal of the securities class action. In March 2010, the Company learned that various State Attorneys General offices and certain other government agencies were conducting a multi-state investigation of certain of the Company's business practices similar to those being investigated at that time by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia and the County of Los Angeles are known to be participating in this investigation. The prior FTC investigation, which commenced in August 2009, was officially concluded in May 2012 when the consent order entered into between the FTC and the Company became final. The Company continues to cooperate in the multi-state investigation. In March 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG requesting information about programs under which the Company has offered customers remuneration conditioned upon the transfer of prescriptions for drugs or medications to our pharmacies in the form of gift cards, cash, non-prescription merchandise or discounts or coupons for non-prescription merchandise. The subpoena relates to an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims for payment under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Company has been providing documents and other information in response to this request for information. The Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in February 2011 and has subsequently received additional subpoenas and other requests for information. The SEC's requests related to, among other things, public disclosures made by the Company during 2009, transactions in the Company’s securities by certain officers and employees of the Company during 2009 and the purchase accounting for the Longs Drug Stores acquisition. The Company has provided the documents and other information requested by the SEC and has been cooperating with the SEC in this investigation. In January 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a first amended qui tam complaint filed in August 2011 by an individual relator, who is described in the complaint as having once been employed by a firm providing pharmacy prescription benefit audit and recovery services. The complaint seeks monetary damages and alleges that Caremark's processing of Medicare claims on behalf of one of its clients violated the federal false claims act. The United States, acting through the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, declined to intervene in the lawsuit. In January 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG requesting information about its Health Savings Pass program, a prescription drug discount program for uninsured or under insured individuals, in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims for payment involving HHS programs. In February 2012, the Company also received a civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas requesting a copy of information produced under this OIG subpoena and other information related to prescription drug claims submitted by the Company's pharmacies to Texas Medicaid for reimbursement. The Company is providing documents and other information in response to these requests for information. A purported shareholder derivative action was filed on behalf of nominal defendant CVS Caremark Corporation against certain of the Company's officers and members of its Board of Directors. The action was originally filed in June 2012 and, after the court granted leave to amend the original filing, an amended complaint was filed in November 2012. The amended complaint alleges a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the Company's alleged failure to properly implement internal regulatory controls to comply with the Controlled Substances Act and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act. In November 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG requesting information concerning automatic refill programs used by pharmacies to refill prescriptions for customers. The Company has been cooperating and providing documents and other information in response to this request for information. The Company is also a party to other legal proceedings and inquiries arising in the normal course of its business, none of which is expected to be material to the Company. The Company can give no assurance, however, that its business, financial condition and results of operations will not be materially adversely affected, or that the Company will not be required to materially change its business practices, based on: (i) future enactment of new health care or other laws or regulations; (ii) the interpretation or application of existing laws or regulations as they may relate to our business, the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industries or to the health care industry generally; (iii) pending or future federal or state governmental investigations of our business or the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industry or of the health care industry generally; (iv) institution of government enforcement actions against us; (v) adverse developments in any pending qui tam lawsuit against us, whether sealed or unsealed, or in any future qui tam lawsuit that may be filed against us; or (vi) adverse developments in other pending or future legal proceedings against us or affecting the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industry or the health care industry generally.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Guarantees

Between 1991 and 1997, the Company sold or spun off a number of subsidiaries, including Bob’s Stores, Linens ‘n Things, Marshalls, Kay-Bee Toys, Wilsons, This End Up and Footstar. In many cases, when a former subsidiary leased a store, the Company provided a guarantee of the store’s lease obligations. When the subsidiaries were disposed of, the Company’s guarantees remained in place, although each initial purchaser has indemnified the Company for any lease obligations the Company was required to satisfy. If any of the purchasers or any of the former subsidiaries were to become insolvent and failed to make the required payments under a store lease, the Company could be required to satisfy these obligations.

As of March 31, 2013, the Company guaranteed approximately 71 such store leases (excluding the lease guarantees related to Linens ‘n Things), with the maximum remaining lease term extending through 2024. Management believes the ultimate disposition of any of the remaining guarantees will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial condition, results of operations or future cash flows.

Legal Matters

The Company is a party to legal proceedings, investigations and claims in the ordinary course of its business, including the matters described below. The Company records accruals for outstanding legal matters when it believes it is probable that a loss will be incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. The Company evaluates, on a quarterly basis, developments in legal matters that could affect the amount of any accrual and developments that would make a loss contingency both probable and reasonably estimable. If a loss contingency is not both probable and estimable, the Company does not establish an accrued liability. None of the Company’s accruals for outstanding legal matters are material individually or in the aggregate to the Company’s financial position.

Our contingencies are subject to significant uncertainties, including, among other factors: (i) the procedural status of pending matters; (ii) whether class action status is sought and certified; (iii) whether asserted claims or allegations will survive dispositive motion practice; (iv) the extent of potential damages, fines or penalties, which are often unspecified or indeterminate; (v) the impact of discovery on the legal process; (vi) whether novel or unsettled legal theories are at issue; (vii) the settlement posture of the parties, and/or (viii) in the case of certain government agency investigations, whether a sealed qui tam lawsuit (“whistleblower” action) has been filed and whether the government agency makes a decision to intervene in the lawsuit following investigation.

Except as otherwise noted, the Company cannot predict with certainty the timing or outcome of the legal matters described below, and is unable to reasonably estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss in excess of amounts already accrued for these matters.

Caremark (the term “Caremark” being used herein to generally refer to any one or more PBM subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable) is a defendant in a qui tam lawsuit initially filed by a relator on behalf of various state and federal government agencies in Texas federal court in 1999. The case was unsealed in May 2005. The case seeks monetary damages and alleges that Caremark’s processing of Medicaid and certain other government claims on behalf of its clients (which allegedly resulted in underpayments from our clients to the applicable government agencies) on one of Caremark’s adjudication platforms violates applicable federal or state false claims acts and fraud statutes. The United States and the States of Texas, Tennessee, Florida, Arkansas, Louisiana and California intervened in the lawsuit, but Tennessee and Florida withdrew from the lawsuit in August 2006 and May 2007, respectively. Thereafter, in 2008, the Company prevailed on several motions for partial summary judgment and, following an appellate ruling from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2011 that affirmed in part and reversed in part these prior rulings, the claims asserted in the case against Caremark have been substantially narrowed. In December 2007, the Company received a document subpoena from the Office of Inspector General ("OIG") within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ("HHS"), requesting information relating to the processing of Medicaid and other government agency claims on a different adjudication platform of Caremark. The Company has been conducting discussions with the United States Department of Justice ("DOJ") and the OIG regarding a possible settlement of these legal matters.

In April 2009, the State of Texas filed a purported civil enforcement action against Caremark for injunctive relief, damages and civil penalties in Travis County, Texas alleging that Caremark violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act and other state laws based on our processing of Texas Medicaid claims on behalf of PBM clients on one of Caremark's adjudication platforms. In September 2011, the Company prevailed on a motion for partial summary judgment against the State of Texas and narrowed the remaining claims in the lawsuit. In October 2009 and October 2010, the Company received civil investigative demands from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas requesting, respectively, information produced under the OIG subpoena described above and other information related to the processing of Medicaid claims. These civil investigative demands state that the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas is investigating allegations currently pending under seal relating to two other adjudication platforms of Caremark. In March 2013, the Company settled all matters related to Caremark's processing of Texas Medicaid claims.

Caremark was named in a putative class action lawsuit filed in October 2003 in Alabama state court by John Lauriello, purportedly on behalf of participants in the 1999 settlement of various securities class action and derivative lawsuits against Caremark and others. Other defendants include insurance companies that provided coverage to Caremark with respect to the settled lawsuits. The Lauriello lawsuit seeks approximately $3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus other non-specified damages based on allegations that the amount of insurance coverage available for the settled lawsuits was misrepresented and suppressed. A similar lawsuit was filed in November 2003 by Frank McArthur, also in Alabama state court, naming as defendants, among others, Caremark and several insurance companies involved in the 1999 settlement. This lawsuit was stayed as a later-filed class action, but McArthur was subsequently allowed to intervene in the Lauriello action. Following the close of class discovery, the trial court entered an Order on August 15, 2012 that granted the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class pursuant to Alabama Rule of Civil Procedures 23(b)(3) but denied their request that the class also be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(1). In addition, the August 15, 2012 Order appointed class representatives and class counsel. The defendants have filed a notice of appeal with the Alabama Supreme Court and the plaintiffs have filed a notice of cross-appeal. The proceedings in the trial court are stayed by statute pending a decision on the appeal and cross-appeal by the Alabama Supreme Court.

Various lawsuits have been filed alleging that Caremark has violated applicable antitrust laws in establishing and maintaining retail pharmacy networks for client health plans. In August 2003, Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc. d/b/a Burns Pharmacy and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co. d/b/a Parkway Drugs #4, together with Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists Association filed a putative class action against Caremark in Pennsylvania federal court, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. This case was initially sent to arbitration based on the contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. In October 2003, two independent pharmacies, North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C&C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., filed a putative class action complaint in Alabama federal court against Caremark and two PBM competitors, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The North Jackson Pharmacy case against two of the Caremark entities named as defendants was transferred to Illinois federal court, and the case against a separate Caremark entity was sent to arbitration based on contract terms between the pharmacies and Caremark. The Bellevue arbitration was then stayed by the parties pending developments in the North Jackson Pharmacy court case.

In August 2006, the Bellevue case and the North Jackson Pharmacy case were both transferred to Pennsylvania federal court by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated and consolidated proceedings with other cases before the panel, including cases against other PBMs. Caremark appealed the decision which vacated an order compelling arbitration and staying the proceedings in the Bellevue case and, following the appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the order compelling arbitration of the Bellevue case. Following remand, plaintiffs in the Bellevue case sought dismissal of their complaint to permit an immediate appeal of the reinstated order compelling arbitration and pursued an appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. In November 2012, the Third Circuit Court reversed the district court ruling and directed the parties to proceed in federal court. Motions for class certification in the coordinated cases within the multidistrict litigation, including the North Jackson Pharmacy case, remain pending, and the court has permitted certain additional class discovery and briefing. The consolidated action is now known as the In Re Pharmacy Benefit Managers Antitrust Litigation.

In November 2009, a securities class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Caremark Corporation stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. The lawsuit names the Company and certain officers as defendants and includes allegations of securities fraud relating to public disclosures made by the Company concerning the PBM business and allegations of insider trading. In addition, a shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. A derivative lawsuit is a lawsuit filed by a shareholder purporting to assert claims on behalf of a corporation against directors and officers of the corporation. This lawsuit, which was stayed pending developments in the related securities class action, includes allegations of, among other things, securities fraud, insider trading and breach of fiduciary duties and further alleges that the Company was damaged by the purchase of stock at allegedly inflated prices under its share repurchase program. In January 2011, both lawsuits were transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. In June 2012, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the securities class action. The plaintiffs subsequently appealed the court’s ruling on the motion to dismiss. The derivative lawsuit will remain stayed pending the outcome of this appeal of the securities class action.

In March 2010, the Company learned that various State Attorneys General offices and certain other government agencies were conducting a multi-state investigation of certain of the Company's business practices similar to those being investigated at that time by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"). Twenty-eight states, the District of Columbia and the County of Los Angeles are known to be participating in this investigation. The prior FTC investigation, which commenced in August 2009, was officially concluded in May 2012 when the consent order entered into between the FTC and the Company became final. The Company continues to cooperate in the multi-state investigation.

In March 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG requesting information about programs under which the Company has offered customers remuneration conditioned upon the transfer of prescriptions for drugs or

medications to our pharmacies in the form of gift cards, cash, non-prescription merchandise or discounts or coupons for non-prescription merchandise. The subpoena relates to an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims for payment under the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Company has been providing documents and other information in response to this request for information.

The Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in February 2011 and has subsequently received additional subpoenas and other requests for information. The SEC's requests related to, among other things, public disclosures made by the Company during 2009, transactions in the Company’s securities by certain officers and employees of the Company during 2009 and the purchase accounting for the Longs Drug Stores acquisition. The Company has provided the documents and other information requested by the SEC and has been cooperating with the SEC in this investigation.

In January 2012, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania unsealed a first amended qui tam complaint filed in August 2011 by an individual relator, who is described in the complaint as having once been employed by a firm providing pharmacy prescription benefit audit and recovery services. The complaint seeks monetary damages and alleges that Caremark's processing of Medicare claims on behalf of one of its clients violated the federal false claims act. The United States, acting through the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, declined to intervene in the lawsuit.

In January 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG requesting information about its Health Savings Pass program, a prescription drug discount program for uninsured or under insured individuals, in connection with an investigation of possible false or otherwise improper claims for payment involving HHS programs. In February 2012, the Company also received a civil investigative demand from the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas requesting a copy of information produced under this OIG subpoena and other information related to prescription drug claims submitted by the Company's pharmacies to Texas Medicaid for reimbursement. The Company is providing documents and other information in response to these requests for information.

A purported shareholder derivative action was filed on behalf of nominal defendant CVS Caremark Corporation against certain of the Company's officers and members of its Board of Directors. The action was originally filed in June 2012 and, after the court granted leave to amend the original filing, an amended complaint was filed in November 2012. The amended complaint alleges a single claim for breach of fiduciary duty relating to the Company's alleged failure to properly implement internal regulatory controls to comply with the Controlled Substances Act and the Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act.

In November 2012, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG requesting information concerning automatic refill programs used by pharmacies to refill prescriptions for customers. The Company has been cooperating and providing documents and other information in response to this request for information.

The Company is also a party to other legal proceedings and inquiries arising in the normal course of its business, none of which is expected to be material to the Company. The Company can give no assurance, however, that its business, financial condition and results of operations will not be materially adversely affected, or that the Company will not be required to materially change its business practices, based on: (i) future enactment of new health care or other laws or regulations; (ii) the interpretation or application of existing laws or regulations as they may relate to our business, the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industries or to the health care industry generally; (iii) pending or future federal or state governmental investigations of our business or the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industry or of the health care industry generally; (iv) institution of government enforcement actions against us; (v) adverse developments in any pending qui tam lawsuit against us, whether sealed or unsealed, or in any future qui tam lawsuit that may be filed against us; or (vi) adverse developments in other pending or future legal proceedings against us or affecting the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industry or the health care industry generally.