COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE O — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments In April 2014, in connection with the settlement of a patent infringement dispute, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Southern Prosthetic Supply, Inc. (“SPS”), entered into a non-cancellable agreement to purchase a total of $4.5 million of prosthetic gel liners in five installments. We determined that a portion of the prosthetic gel liners should be reserved as excess and slow-moving inventory, and we accrued a liability and expensed $3.4 million in 2014. As of June 30, 2018, $1.0 million of the non-cancellable purchase commitment was outstanding and is due and payable by April of 2019. As of June 30, 2018, our reserve associated with the non-cancellable purchase commitment was $2.6 million. Guarantees and Indemnification In the ordinary course of our business, we may enter into service agreements with service providers in which we agree to indemnify or limit the service provider against certain losses and liabilities arising from the service provider’s performance of the agreement. We have reviewed our existing contracts containing indemnification or clauses of guarantees and do not believe that our liability under such agreements is material. Legal Proceedings Securities and Derivative Litigation In November 2014, a securities class action complaint, City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. Hanger, et al., C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint named us and certain of our current and former officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia, our financial statements, RAC audit success rate, the implementation of new financial systems, same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of our internal processes and controls. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief. On April 1, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 15, 2016, we and certain of the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 26, 2017, the court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim. On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellate briefing was completed on August 18, 2017 and the Court of Appeals held oral argument for the appeal on March 5, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case against individual defendants Vinit Asar, our current President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Kirk, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, but reversed the dismissal of the case against George McHenry, our former Chief Financial Officer, and Hanger, Inc. The case has been remanded back to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for further proceedings with respect to the remaining claims. We believe the remaining claims are without merit, and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims. In February and August of 2015, two separate shareholder derivative suits were filed in Texas state court against us related to the announced restatement of certain of our financial statements. The cases were subsequently consolidated into Judy v. Asar, et. al., Cause No. D-1-GN-15-000625. On October 25, 2016, plaintiffs in that action filed an amended complaint, and the case is currently pending before the 459th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas. The amended complaint in the consolidated derivative action names us and certain of our current and former officers and directors as defendants. It alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty based, inter alia, on the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise good faith to ensure that we had in place adequate accounting and financial controls and that disclosures regarding our business, financial performance and internal controls were truthful and accurate. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief. As disclosed in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 6, 2016, the Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee of the Board (the “Special Committee”). The Board delegated to the Special Committee the authority to (1) determine whether it is in our best interests to pursue any of the allegations made in the derivative cases filed in Texas state court (which cases were consolidated into the Judy case discussed above), (2) determine whether it is in our best interests to pursue any remedies against any of our current or former employees, officers or directors as a result of the conduct discovered in the Audit Committee investigation concluded on June 6, 2016 (the “Investigation”), and (3) otherwise resolve claims or matters relating to the findings of the Investigation. The Special Committee retained independent legal counsel to assist and advise it in carrying out its duties and reviewed and considered the evidence and various factors relating to our best interests. In accordance with its findings and conclusions, the Special Committee determined that it is not in our best interest to pursue any of the claims in the Judy derivative case. Also in accordance with its findings and conclusions, the Special Committee determined that it is not in our best interests to pursue legal remedies against any of our current or former employees, officers, or directors. On April 14, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated derivative action based on the resolution by the Special Committee that it is not in our best interest to pursue the derivative claims. Counsel for the derivative plaintiffs opposed that motion and moved to compel discovery. In a hearing held on June 12, 2017, the Travis County court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel, and held that the motion to dismiss would be considered only after appropriate discovery was concluded. The plaintiffs have since subpoenaed counsel for the Special Committee, seeking a copy of the full report prepared by the Special Committee and its independent counsel. Counsel for the Special Committee, as well as our counsel, took the position that the full report is not discoverable under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to compel the Special Committee’s counsel to produce the full report. We opposed the motion. On July 20, 2018, the Travis County court ruled that only a redacted version of the report is discoverable. Upon completion of discovery we intend to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated derivative action. Management intends to continue to vigorously defend against the securities class action and the shareholder derivative action. At this time, we cannot predict how the Courts will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable, the resulting damages could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of our operations. Other Matters From time to time we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business, including additional payments under business purchase agreements. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of our operations. We are in a highly regulated industry and receive regulatory agency inquiries from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, including inquiries relating to our billing activities. No assurance can be given that any discrepancies identified during a regulatory review will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements. Favorable Settlements For the three months ended June 30, 2018, our results of operations and net income benefited from the favorable resolution of two matters. On May 15, 2018, we received a net favorable settlement of $1.7 million in connection with our long standing damage claims relating to the “Deepwater Horizon” disaster, and the prior adverse effect which it had on our clinic operations along the Gulf Coast in April of 2010. We anticipate the receipt of no further payments in connection with this matter as this settlement constituted a full and final satisfaction of our claims. The benefit of this settlement has been recognized as a reduction to our general and administrative expenses for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2018. On June 28, 2018, we entered into an agreement with the State of Delaware, and made payment, to satisfy all of the State’s abandoned or unclaimed property claims transactions represented within the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2012 which were reportable through December 31, 2017 in the amount of $2.2 million. This agreed upon payment amount was favorable by $0.5 million to the amount we had previously estimated for these liabilities and had the effect of reducing our general and administrative expenses by this amount for the quarter and year-to-date. Additionally, under the terms of the agreement, we were not required to pay interest on the previously un-remitted cumulative abandoned or unclaimed property relating to this twelve year period in the amount of $1.5 million, which had the effect of lowering our interest expense in the quarter and for the year-to-date periods ending June 30, 2018 by this accrued interest amount.

NOTE O — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

In April 2014, in connection with the settlement of a patent infringement dispute, our wholly-owned subsidiary, Southern Prosthetic Supply, Inc. (“SPS”), entered into a non-cancellable agreement to purchase a total of $4.5 million of prosthetic gel liners in five installments. We determined that a portion of the prosthetic gel liners should be reserved as excess and slow-moving inventory, and we accrued a liability and expensed $3.4 million in 2014. As of June 30, 2018, $1.0 million of the non-cancellable purchase commitment was outstanding and is due and payable by April of 2019. As of June 30, 2018, our reserve associated with the non-cancellable purchase commitment was $2.6 million.

Guarantees and Indemnification

In the ordinary course of our business, we may enter into service agreements with service providers in which we agree to indemnify or limit the service provider against certain losses and liabilities arising from the service provider’s performance of the agreement. We have reviewed our existing contracts containing indemnification or clauses of guarantees and do not believe that our liability under such agreements is material.

Legal Proceedings

Securities and Derivative Litigation

In November 2014, a securities class action complaint, City of Pontiac General Employees’ Retirement System v. Hanger, et al., C.A. No. 1:14-cv-01026-SS, was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. The complaint named us and certain of our current and former officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading statements regarding, inter alia, our financial statements, RAC audit success rate, the implementation of new financial systems, same-store sales growth, and the adequacy of our internal processes and controls. The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint sought unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief.

On April 1, 2016, the court granted our motion to dismiss the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. On July 1, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On September 15, 2016, we and certain of the individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit. On January 26, 2017, the court granted the defendants’ motions and dismissed with prejudice all claims against all defendants for failure to state a claim. On February 24, 2017, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Appellate briefing was completed on August 18, 2017 and the Court of Appeals held oral argument for the appeal on March 5, 2018. On August 6, 2018, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the case against individual defendants Vinit Asar, our current President and Chief Executive Officer, and Thomas Kirk, our former President and Chief Executive Officer, but reversed the dismissal of the case against George McHenry, our former Chief Financial Officer, and Hanger, Inc. The case has been remanded back to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas for further proceedings with respect to the remaining claims. We believe the remaining claims are without merit, and intend to continue to vigorously defend against these claims.

In February and August of 2015, two separate shareholder derivative suits were filed in Texas state court against us related to the announced restatement of certain of our financial statements. The cases were subsequently consolidated into Judy v. Asar, et. al., Cause No. D-1-GN-15-000625. On October 25, 2016, plaintiffs in that action filed an amended complaint, and the case is currently pending before the 459th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.

The amended complaint in the consolidated derivative action names us and certain of our current and former officers and directors as defendants. It alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty based, inter alia, on the defendants’ alleged failure to exercise good faith to ensure that we had in place adequate accounting and financial controls and that disclosures regarding our business, financial performance and internal controls were truthful and accurate. The complaint seeks unspecified damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, and equitable relief.

As disclosed in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on June 6, 2016, the Board of Directors appointed a Special Litigation Committee of the Board (the “Special Committee”). The Board delegated to the Special Committee the authority to (1) determine whether it is in our best interests to pursue any of the allegations made in the derivative cases filed in Texas state court (which cases were consolidated into the Judy case discussed above), (2) determine whether it is in our best interests to pursue any remedies against any of our current or former employees, officers or directors as a result of the conduct discovered in the Audit Committee investigation concluded on June 6, 2016 (the “Investigation”), and (3) otherwise resolve claims or matters relating to the findings of the Investigation. The Special Committee retained independent legal counsel to assist and advise it in carrying out its duties and reviewed and considered the evidence and various factors relating to our best interests. In accordance with its findings and conclusions, the Special Committee determined that it is not in our best interest to pursue any of the claims in the Judy derivative case. Also in accordance with its findings and conclusions, the Special Committee determined that it is not in our best interests to pursue legal remedies against any of our current or former employees, officers, or directors.

On April 14, 2017, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated derivative action based on the resolution by the Special Committee that it is not in our best interest to pursue the derivative claims. Counsel for the derivative plaintiffs opposed that motion and moved to compel discovery. In a hearing held on June 12, 2017, the Travis County court denied plaintiffs’ motion to compel, and held that the motion to dismiss would be considered only after appropriate discovery was concluded.

The plaintiffs have since subpoenaed counsel for the Special Committee, seeking a copy of the full report prepared by the Special Committee and its independent counsel. Counsel for the Special Committee, as well as our counsel, took the position that the full report is not discoverable under Texas law. Plaintiffs’ counsel filed a motion to compel the Special Committee’s counsel to produce the full report. We opposed the motion. On July 20, 2018, the Travis County court ruled that only a redacted version of the report is discoverable. Upon completion of discovery we intend to file a motion to dismiss the consolidated derivative action.

Management intends to continue to vigorously defend against the securities class action and the shareholder derivative action. At this time, we cannot predict how the Courts will rule on the merits of the claims and/or the scope of the potential loss in the event of an adverse outcome. Should we ultimately be found liable, the resulting damages could have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of our operations.

Other Matters

From time to time we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business, including additional payments under business purchase agreements. In the opinion of management, the amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to these actions will not have a materially adverse effect on our consolidated financial position, liquidity or results of our operations.

We are in a highly regulated industry and receive regulatory agency inquiries from time to time in the ordinary course of our business, including inquiries relating to our billing activities. No assurance can be given that any discrepancies identified during a regulatory review will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements.

Favorable Settlements

For the three months ended June 30, 2018, our results of operations and net income benefited from the favorable resolution of two matters.

On May 15, 2018, we received a net favorable settlement of $1.7 million in connection with our long standing damage claims relating to the “Deepwater Horizon” disaster, and the prior adverse effect which it had on our clinic operations along the Gulf Coast in April of 2010. We anticipate the receipt of no further payments in connection with this matter as this settlement constituted a full and final satisfaction of our claims. The benefit of this settlement has been recognized as a reduction to our general and administrative expenses for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2018.

On June 28, 2018, we entered into an agreement with the State of Delaware, and made payment, to satisfy all of the State’s abandoned or unclaimed property claims transactions represented within the period of January 1, 2001 through December 31, 2012 which were reportable through December 31, 2017 in the amount of $2.2 million. This agreed upon payment amount was favorable by $0.5 million to the amount we had previously estimated for these liabilities and had the effect of reducing our general and administrative expenses by this amount for the quarter and year-to-date. Additionally, under the terms of the agreement, we were not required to pay interest on the previously un-remitted cumulative abandoned or unclaimed property relating to this twelve year period in the amount of $1.5 million, which had the effect of lowering our interest expense in the quarter and for the year-to-date periods ending June 30, 2018 by this accrued interest amount.