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 and Marshalls. 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 September 30, 2014, the Company guaranteed approximately 72 such store leases (excluding the lease guarantees related to Linens ‘n Things, which have been recorded as a liability on the condensed consolidated balance sheet), with the maximum remaining lease term extending through 2026. 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.

The Company’s 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.

•

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 certain other government agency claims on behalf of its clients (which allegedly resulted in underpayments from our pharmacy benefit management clients to the applicable government agencies) on one of the Company's adjudication platforms. In September 2014, the Company settled the underlying lawsuit with the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”), the OIG and the private plaintiff without any admission of liability and is in discussions with the OIG concerning other claim processing issues.

•

Caremark (the term “Caremark” being used herein to generally refer to any one or more pharmacy benefit management subsidiaries of the Company, as applicable) 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 Caremark, several insurance companies, attorneys and law firms 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 Rules of Civil Procedure 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. On September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's August 15, 2012 Order. The Defendants timely filed an Application for Rehearing with the Alabama Supreme Court seeking to clarify or modify its September 12, 2014 decision. The proceedings in the trial court remain stayed pending resolution of the rehearing application.

•

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 the Company's stock between May 5, 2009 and November 4, 2009. Plaintiffs subsequently amended the lawsuit to allege a class period beginning October 30, 2008. 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. 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. In May 2013, the First Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the prior ruling and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. In December 2013, the district court denied the Company’s renewed motion to dismiss the lawsuit. The derivative lawsuit is presently stayed pending further developments in the 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 has cooperated 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 the Company’s 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 provided documents and other information in response to this request for information.

•

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. Caremark filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and the DOJ filed a Statement of Interest with regard to Caremark's motion to dismiss. In December 2012, the court denied Caremark's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. Discovery is proceeding in the matter.

•

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 underinsured 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. In May 2014, the Company received a second set of civil investigative demands from the Attorney General of the State of Texas, requesting that the Company produce further 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 Health Corporation against certain of the Company’s officers and members of its Board of Directors. The action, which alleged 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, was originally filed in June 2012. In addition, an amended complaint was filed in November 2012 and a Supplemental Complaint was filed in April 2013. In October 2013, the court granted the Company's motion to dismiss and entered judgment dismissing the action, without prejudice. Following dismissal of the action, the same purported shareholder sent a letter to the Company's Board of Directors demanding that the Board investigate her allegations and pursue legal action against certain directors and officers of the Company. After conducting a thorough review, an independent committee of the Board of Directors rejected the demand.

•

On October 12, 2012, the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) Administrator published its Final Decision and Order revoking the DEA license registrations for dispensing controlled substances at two of the Company's retail pharmacy stores in Sanford, Florida. The license revocations for the two stores formally became effective on November 13, 2012. The pharmacies had voluntarily suspended dispensing controlled substances since April 2012, and have continued operating in that manner in compliance with the DEA Order. The Company has entered into discussions with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida concerning civil penalties for violations of the Controlled Substances Act arising from the circumstances underlying the action taken against the two Sanford, Florida stores. The Company is also undergoing audits by the DEA and is in discussions with the DEA and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in several locations. Whether agreements can be reached and on what terms is uncertain.


•	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.

•

In March 2014, the Company received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Rhode Island, requesting documents and information concerning bona fide service fees and rebates received from certain pharmaceutical manufacturers in connection with certain drugs utilized under Part D of the Medicare Program. The Company has been cooperating with the government and producing documents in response to the subpoena.

The Company is also a party to other legal proceedings, government investigations, inquiries and audits 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 the Company's 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 the Company’s business or the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industry or of the health care industry generally; (iv) pending or future government enforcement actions against the Company; (v) adverse developments in any pending qui tam lawsuit against the Company, whether sealed or unsealed, or in any future qui tam lawsuit that may be filed against the Company; or (vi) adverse developments in pending or future legal proceedings against the Company or affecting the pharmacy services, retail pharmacy or retail clinic industry or the health care industry generally.