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 agreed to indemnify 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 June 30, 2015, 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, 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 OIG’s claims, as well as related claims by the Department of Justice and private plaintiffs, without any admission of liability. The Company 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 PBM 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, 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. On September 12, 2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s August 15, 2012 Order, and the case is proceeding.

•

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. 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 by Richard Medoff, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of CVS Health 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 by Mark Wuotila in December 2009 in the same court against the directors and certain officers of the Company. This lawsuit, which has remained 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. The derivative action is 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 with 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, Anthony Spay, 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 declined to intervene in the lawsuit. The case is proceeding.


•	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 July 2015, the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts dismissed all claims alleged in a qui tam lawsuit that had been brought against the Company by a pharmacy auditor and a CVS pharmacist. The lawsuit, which was initially filed under seal in 2011, alleged that the Company violated the federal False Claims Act, as well as the false claims acts of several states, by overcharging state and federal governments in connection with prescription drugs available through the Company’s Health Savings Pass program, a membership-based program that allows enrolled customers special pricing for typical 90-day supplies of various generic prescription drugs. The federal government, had declined to intervene in the case. Separately, the Attorney General of the State of Texas has issued civil investigative demands and other requests in February 2012, May 2014, and May 2015, and has continued its investigation concerning the Health Savings Pass program and other pricing practices with respect to claims for reimbursement from the Texas Medicaid program.

•

In January 2014, the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of New York unsealed a qui tam action in which the Company is a defendant. The suit originally was filed under seal in 2011 by relator David Kester, a former employee of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. (“Novartis”). The suit alleges that Novartis, the Company, and other specialty pharmacies violated the federal False Claims Act, as well as the false claims acts of several states, by using pharmacists, nurses and other staff to recommend and increase the sales and market share for certain Novartis specialty drugs in exchange for patient referrals, rebates and discounts provided by Novartis. The federal government has intervened in the case as to some allegations against Novartis but has declined to intervene as to any of the allegations against the Company. Kester continued the litigation against the Company, but on June 16, 2015, filed a notice of settlement with the Court. The parties await government approval before the case is dismissed.

•

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 pharmaceutical manufacturers in connection with certain drugs utilized under Part D of the Medicare Program, as well as the reporting of those fees and rebates to Part D plan sponsors. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to the subpoena.

•

In May 2015, the Company entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida, resolving alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”). The Company paid a fine of $22 million in connection with the settlement. The Company is also undergoing several audits by the Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”) Administrator and is in discussions with the DEA and the U.S. Attorney’s Office in several locations concerning allegations that the Company has violated certain requirements of the CSA. Whether agreements can be reached and on what terms is uncertain.

•

In May 2015, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG requesting information and documents concerning the Company’s automatic refill programs, adherence outreach programs, and pharmacy customer incentives, particularly in connection with claims for reimbursement made to the Minnesota Medicaid program. The Company has been cooperating with the investigation and providing information 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.