Note 11 – Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Guarantees

Between 1995 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 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 September 30, 2018, the Company guaranteed approximately 84 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 2029.

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. In October 2018, the Company agreed to resolve this matter for $20 million, funded by insurance proceeds. The settlement is subject to the parties reaching agreement on the non-economic terms and court approval. The Company denies any wrongdoing, and agreed to a settlement to avoid the burden, uncertainty and distraction of litigation.

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 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General 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 complaint was served on the Company in January 2017. In December 2017, the same court unsealed a second qui tam complaint filed by the same relator in September 2017. The complaint is based on the same factual allegations but asserts a legal theory the Court did not permit him to add to the original case. The federal government has declined intervention in both cases. In April 2018, the Court dismissed the second lawsuit. In May 2018, the Court allowed the relator’s motion to amend the complaint to add additional related legal theories, one of which was subsequently dismissed in July 2018. The Company is defending the matter.

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 CVS 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 CVS Health Savings Pass program do not constitute usual and customary prices under the Medicaid regulation. In March 2018, the Court denied the State of Texas’s request for temporary injunctive relief. The cases are proceeding.

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. and Plumbers Welfare Fund, Local 130 v. CVS Health Corporation (both pending in the 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 the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price. In the consumer case (Corcoran), the Court granted summary judgment to CVS on plaintiffs’ claims in their entirety and certified certain subclasses in September 2017. The Corcoran plaintiffs have appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Sheet Metal plaintiffs have amended their complaint to assert a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claim premised on an alleged conspiracy between the Company and other PBMs. 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 Administration (“DEA”). The subpoena seeks documents related to controlled substance policies, procedures, and practices at eight pharmacy locations from May 2012 to the present. In September 2017, the DEA expanded the investigation to include an additional pharmacy. The Company has been cooperating and providing documents and witnesses in response to this administrative subpoena.

Omnicare Cycle Fill Civil Investigative Demand. 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. In July 2017, Omnicare also received a subpoena from the California Department of Insurance requesting documents on similar subject matter.

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 (“DOJ”) 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 and Cosmetic Act. In March 2017, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss with leave to file an amended complaint. In March 2018, the Court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice. In June 2018, the relators filed a notice of appeal. The relators dismissed their appeal, and the case is now closed.

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 CVS Health Savings Pass program as well as certain other generic drugs. The case has been stayed pending the relator’s appeal of the judgment against him in a similar case against another retailer.

Retail DEA Matters. The Company has been undergoing several audits by the DEA Administrator and is in discussions with the DEA and the U.S. Attorney’s Offices in several locations concerning allegations that the Company has violated certain requirements of the Controlled Substance Act.

National Opioid Litigation. In December 2017, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated numerous cases filed against various defendants by plaintiffs such as counties, cities, hospitals, Indian tribes, and third-party payors, alleging claims generally concerning the impacts of widespread opioid abuse. The consolidated multidistrict litigation captioned In re National Prescription Opiate Litigation (MDL No. 2804) is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. This multidistrict litigation presumptively includes hundreds of relevant federal court cases that name the Company. Fewer than 100 similar cases that name the Company in some capacity are pending in state courts. The Company is defending all such federal and state matters. Additionally, the Company has received from the Attorney Generals of several states subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and/or other requests concerning opioids.

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 the price available to members of the CVS Health Savings Pass program as the pharmacy’s usual and customary price. 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.

Part B Insulin Products Civil Investigative Demand. In December 2016, the Company received 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. The Company has cooperated with the government and provided documents and information in response to the Civil Investigative Demand.

Cold Chain Logistics Civil Investigative Demand. In September 2016, the Company received from the DOJ 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.

Insulin Products Investigation. In April 2017, the Company 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. We have been notified by the Office of the Attorney General of Washington that information provided in response to the Civil Investigative Demand will be shared with the Attorneys General of California, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, the District of Columbia, and Mississippi. In July 2017, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Attorney General of Minnesota, seeking documents and information regarding pricing and rebates for insulin and epinephrine products in connection with a pending investigation into unfair and deceptive acts or practices regarding insulin and epinephrine pricing.

Bewley, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. and Prescott, et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al. (both pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington). These putative class actions were filed in May 2017 against the Company and other pharmacy benefit managers and manufacturers of glucagon kits (Bewley) and diabetes test strips (Prescott). Both cases allege that, by contracting for rebates with the manufacturers of these diabetes products, the Company and other PBMs caused list prices for these products to increase, thereby harming certain consumers. The primary claims are made under federal antitrust laws, the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state unfair competition and consumer protection laws, and the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”). These cases have both been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on defendants’ motions. The Company is defending these lawsuits.

Klein, et al. v. Prime Therapeutics, et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota). In June 2017, a putative class action complaint was filed against the Company and other pharmacy benefit managers on behalf of ERISA plan members who purchased and paid for EpiPen or EpiPen Jr. Plaintiffs allege that the pharmacy benefit managers are ERISA fiduciaries to plan members and have violated ERISA by allegedly causing higher inflated prices for EpiPen through the process of negotiating increased rebates from EpiPen manufacturer, Mylan. This case was recently consolidated with a similar matter and is now proceeding as In re EpiPen ERISA Litigation. The Company is defending the lawsuit.

Medicare Part D Civil Investigative Demand. In May 2017, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York issued a Civil Investigative Demand to the Company concerning possible false claims submitted to Medicare in connection with reimbursements for prescription drugs under the Medicare Part D program. The Company has been cooperating with the government and providing documents and information in response to the Civil Investigative Demand.

Shareholder Matters. In August and September 2017, four complaints were filed by putative derivative plaintiffs against certain officers and directors of the Company. Three of those actions, Sherman v. Merlo, et al., Feghali v. Merlo, et al., and Banchalter v. Merlo, et al., were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. A fourth, Boron v. Bracken, et al., was filed in Rhode Island Superior Court. These matters assert a variety of causes of action, including breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, unjust enrichment, civil conspiracy and violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and are premised on the allegation that the defendants approved business plans that exposed the Company to various litigations and investigations. The three federal matters have been stayed pending resolution of certain of the underlying matters, and the Company has filed a motion to dismiss the state court action.

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.