Note 8 – 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 and accounted for as discontinued operations, 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 March 31, 2017, the Company guaranteed approximately 86 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 2047.

In April 2016, Bob’s Stores filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. As described above, the Company, through one or more of its affiliates, is alleged to have guaranteed certain of the Bob’s Stores’ leases (the “Bob’s Leases”). The Company, through its subsidiary, CVS Pharmacy, Inc., and Bob’s Stores, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“New Bob’s”), the entity that acquired substantially all of the assets of Bob’s Stores in the 2016 bankruptcy proceeding, entered into an agreement in October 2016, pursuant to which, in exchange for a series of payments that are immaterial individually and in the aggregate to be made by CVS Pharmacy, Inc., New Bob’s accepted the assignment of the Bob’s Leases and agreed to be bound by certain restrictions regarding renewals, extensions and modifications to the Bob’s Leases. The Company believed these restrictions would potentially reduce the Company's exposure to liability under guarantees of the Bob’s Leases in the future. The bankruptcy court approved the assignment of the Bob’s Leases to New Bob's on November 7, 2016, and all of the Bob’s Leases were assigned to New Bob’s.

On February 5, 2017, New Bob’s and certain of its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The Debtors, including New Bob’s, have sought Bankruptcy Court approval to sell substantially all of their assets to an affiliate of SportsDirect Retail Ltd. (the “SD Affiliate”). As of this time, it is unclear which of the Bob’s Leases will be assumed by the SD Affiliate. The Company will continue to monitor the Debtors’ bankruptcy proceedings.

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.

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.

Indiana State District Council of Laborers and HOD Carriers Pension and Welfare Fund v. Omnicare, Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky). In February 2006, two substantially similar putative class action lawsuits were filed and subsequently consolidated. The consolidated complaint was filed against Omnicare, three of its officers and two of its directors and purported to be brought on behalf of all open-market purchasers of Omnicare common stock from August 3, 2005 through July 27, 2006, as well as all purchasers who bought shares of Omnicare common stock in Omnicare’s public offering in December 2005. The complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and sought, among other things, compensatory damages and injunctive relief. After dismissals and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the United States Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court. In October 2016, Omnicare filed an answer to plaintiffs’ third amended complaint, and discovery commenced.

FTC and Multi-State Investigation. 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.

United States ex rel. Jack Chin v. Walgreen Company et al. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California). 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. In October 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California unsealed a qui tam complaint, filed in April 2009 against CVS Pharmacy and other retail pharmacies, alleging that the Company violated the federal False Claims Act, and the false claims acts of several states, by offering such programs. The federal government has declined intervention in the case.

United States ex rel. James Banigan and Richard Templin v. Organon USA Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts). In October 2010, the court unsealed a qui tam complaint, which had been under seal since 2007, against Organon, Omnicare, Inc. and PharMerica Corporation. The suit was brought by two former employees of Organon, as relators on behalf of the federal government and several state and local governments. The action alleges civil violations of the federal False Claims Act based on allegations that Organon and its affiliates paid Omnicare and several other long-term care pharmacies rebates, post-purchase discounts and other forms of remuneration in return for purchasing pharmaceuticals from Organon and taking steps to increase the purchase of Organon’s drugs in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in this action. The Company has tentatively agreed with the Department of Justice to resolve this matter for $23 million plus interest. These financial terms are contingent on approval by authorized officials at the Department of Justice, negotiation of terms of a settlement agreement, approval and releases from the OIG, the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and the Department of Justice. While the Company believes that a final settlement will be reached, there can be no assurance that any final settlement agreement will be reached or as to the final terms of such settlement.

United States ex rel. Anthony R. Spay v. CVS Caremark Corporation et al. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). In January 2012, the court 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. In September 2015, the Court granted Caremark's motion for summary judgment in its entirety, and entered judgment in favor of Caremark and against Spay. In October 2015, Spay filed a notice of appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; that court heard oral arguments on the appeal in November 2016.

State of Texas ex rel. Myron Winkelman and Stephani Martinson et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (Travis County Texas District Court). In February 2012, the Attorney General of the State of Texas issued Civil Investigative Demands and has issued a series of subsequent requests for documents and information in connection with 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 2017, the court unsealed a first amended petition. The amended petition alleges the Company violated the Texas Medicaid Fraud Prevention Act by submitting false claims for reimbursement to Texas Medicaid by, among other things, failing to use the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the usual and customary price. The amended petition was unsealed following the Company’s filing of CVS Pharmacy, Inc. v. Charles Smith et al. (Travis County District Court), a declaratory judgment action against the State of Texas in December 2016 seeking a declaration that the prices charged to members of the Health Savings Pass program do not constitute usual and customary prices under the Medicaid regulation. The State of Texas is also pursuing temporary injunctive relief.

California ReadyFill Subpoena. In November 2012, the Company received a subpoena for documents from the OIG requesting information concerning automatic refill programs used by pharmacies to refill prescriptions for customers. The subpoena was issued in connection with an investigation conducted out of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California. The Company produced documents and data.

Pure Services Subpoena. In November 2013, Omnicare received a subpoena from HHS-OIG seeking information regarding Omnicare’s May 2008 acquisition of Pure Service Pharmacy. In 2016, Omnicare reached an agreement regarding financial terms to resolve, for $1.5 million plus interest, the subpoena regarding the acquisition of Pure Service Pharmacy. These financial terms are contingent on approval by authorized officials at the Department of Justice, negotiation of terms of a settlement agreement, approval and releases from the OIG, the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and the Department of Justice. While the Company believes that a final settlement will be reached, there can be no assurance that any final settlement agreement will be reached or as to the final terms of such settlement.

Auto Label Subpoena. In June 2014, Omnicare received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey seeking information regarding Omnicare’s Auto Label Verification system. In 2016, Omnicare reached an agreement regarding financial terms to resolve, for $8 million plus interest, the subpoena regarding Omnicare’s Auto Label Verification system. These financial terms are contingent on approval by authorized officials at the Department of Justice, negotiation of terms of a settlement agreement, approval and releases from the OIG, the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and the Department of Justice. While the Company believes that a final settlement will be reached, there can be no assurance that any final settlement agreement will be reached or as to the final terms of such settlement.

Subpoena Concerning PBM Administrative Fees. 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.

ReadyFill Subpoena (Minnesota). 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.

Corcoran et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California) and Podgorny et al. v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). These putative class actions were filed against the Company in July and September 2015. The cases were consolidated in United States District Court in the Northern District of California. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief on behalf of a class of consumers who purchased certain prescription drugs under the consumer protection statutes and common laws of certain states. Several third-party payors filed similar putative class actions on behalf of payors captioned Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund v. CVS Health Corp. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island) and Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island) in February and August 2016. In all of these cases the plaintiffs allege the Company overcharged for certain prescription drugs by not submitting as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program. In the consumer case (Corcoran), the Court denied plaintiffs’ motion for certification of an 11-state class without prejudice. The Company continues to defend these actions.

Omnicare DEA Subpoena. In September 2015, Omnicare was served with an administrative subpoena by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency (“DEA”). The subpoena seeks documents related to controlled substance policies, procedures, and practices at eight pharmacy locations from May 2012 to the present. The Company has been cooperating and providing documents in response to this administrative subpoena.

Omnicare Cycle Fill CID. In October 2015, Omnicare received a Civil Investigative Demand from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York requesting information and documents concerning Omnicare’s cycle fill process for assisted living facilities. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to the Civil Investigative Demand.

PBM Pricing CID. In October 2015, the Company received from the U.S. Department of Justice a Civil Investigative Demand requesting documents and information in connection with a False Claims Act investigation concerning allegations that the Company submitted, or caused to be submitted, to the Medicare Part D program prescription drug event data that misrepresented true prices paid by the Company’s PBM to pharmacies for drugs dispensed to Part D beneficiaries with prescription benefits administered by the Company’s PBM. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to the Civil Investigative Demand.

United States ex rel. Sally Schimelpfenig and John Segura v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania). In November 2015, the court unsealed a second amended qui tam complaint filed in September 2015. The U.S. Department of Justice declined to intervene in this action. The relators allege that the Company, Walgreens, Wal-Mart, and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories violated the federal and various state False Claims Acts by dispensing prescriptions in unit dose packaging supplied by Dr. Reddy’s that was not compliant with the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act and the Poison Preventive Packaging Act and thereby allegedly rendering the drugs misbranded under the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act. In March 2017, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint.

Barchock et al. v. CVS Health Corporation et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island). In February 2016, an ERISA class action lawsuit was filed against the Company, the Benefit Plans Committee of the Company, and Galliard Capital Management, Inc., by Mary Barchock, Thomas Wasecko, and Stacy Weller, purportedly on behalf of the 401(k) Plan and the Employee Stock Ownership Plan of the Company (the “Plan”), and participants in the Plan. The complaint alleges that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiffs and the Plan by investing too much of the Plan’s Stable Value Fund in short-term money market funds and cash management accounts. The court recently granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint.

State of California ex rel. Matthew Omlansky v. CVS Caremark Corporation (Superior Court of the State of California, County of Sacramento). In April 2016, the court unsealed a first amended qui tam complaint filed in July 2013. The government has declined intervention in this case. The relator alleges that the Company submitted false claims for payment to California Medicaid in connection with reimbursement for drugs available through the Health Savings Pass program as well as certain other generic drugs. The Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.

DEA Matters. In October 2016, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California to resolve alleged violations of the Controlled Substances Act (“CSA”) for $5 million. The settlement is contingent on the negotiation of terms of a settlement agreement. The Company has been also undergoing several audits by the 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.

West Virginia Opioid Litigation. In March 2017, the Company was named as a defendant in four separate lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of West Virginia on behalf of counties in the state of West Virginia (Cabell, Fayette, Kanawha and Wayne counties), each of which alleges that CVS Indiana LLC, as well as various other distributors of controlled substances, caused a public nuisance related to opioid abuse by failing to detect and/or report purported suspicious orders of opioids distributed for dispensing in the plaintiff counties. Omnicare Distribution Center LLC also is named as a defendant in the complaint filed by Kanawha County. The Company is defending these actions.

State of Mississippi v. CVS Health Corporation et al. (Chancery Court of Desoto County, Mississippi, Third Judicial District). In July 2016, the Company was served with a complaint filed on behalf of the State of Mississippi alleging that CVS retail pharmacies in Mississippi submitted false claims for reimbursement to Mississippi Medicaid by not submitting as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program. The Company has responded to the complaint, filed a counterclaim, and moved to transfer the case to circuit court. The motion to transfer was granted and the motion to dismiss remains pending.

Mayberry v. Walgreens Co., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois). In March 2017, a complaint was filed against the Company (and several other retail pharmacy defendants) alleging that the defendant pharmacies improperly submitted certain insulin claims through Medicare Part D rather than Part B. The Company is defending this action. The Company separately received in December 2016 a Civil Investigative Demand from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of New York, requesting documents and information in connection with a False Claims Act investigation concerning whether the Company’s retail pharmacies improperly submitted certain insulin claims to Medicare Part D rather than Part B.

Cold Chain Logistics CID. In September 2016, the Company received from the U.S. Department of Justice a Civil Investigative Demand in connection with an investigation as to whether the Company’s handling of certain temperature-sensitive pharmaceuticals violates the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and the False Claims Act. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to the Civil Investigative Demand.

Amburgey et al. v. CaremarkPCS Health, L.L.C. (U.S. District Court for the Central District of California). In March 2017, the Company was served with a complaint challenging the policies and procedures used by CVS specialty pharmacies to ship temperature-sensitive medications. The case is similar to a matter already pending against the Company in the Superior Court of California (Los Angeles County), Bertram v. Immunex Corp., et al., which was filed in October 2014. The Company is defending these actions.

Barnett et al. v. Novo Nordisk Inc., et al. and Boss, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al.(both pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). These putative class actions were filed against the Company and other pharmacy benefit managers (“PBMs”) and manufacturers of insulin in March 2017. Plaintiffs in both cases allege that the PBMs and manufacturers have engaged in a conspiracy whereby the PBMs sell access to their formularies by demanding the highest rebates, which in turn causes increased list prices for insulin. The primary claims are antitrust claims, claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), violations of state unfair competition and consumer protection laws and in Boss, claims pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). The Barnett plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of all persons who paid any portion of the purchase prices for a prescription for certain insulin products at a price calculated by reference to a benchmark. The Boss plaintiffs purport to represent multiple nationwide classes including a non-ERISA Employee/Exchange Plan class, an ERISA class, a Medicare class and an uninsured class.

In April 2017, the Company separately received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Attorney General of Washington, seeking documents and information regarding pricing and rebates for insulin products in connection with a pending investigation into unfair and deceptive acts or practice regarding insulin pricing.

The Company is also a party to other legal proceedings, government investigations, inquiries and audits, and has received and is cooperating with subpoenas or similar process from various governmental agencies requesting information, all 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, specialty pharmacy, retail pharmacy, long-term care 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, specialty pharmacy, retail pharmacy, long-term care 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, specialty pharmacy, retail pharmacy, long-term care pharmacy or retail clinic industry or the health care industry generally.