COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE R — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES 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. 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. On August 20, 2018, Hanger, Inc. and George McHenry filed a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2019 the Court of Appeals granted the petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its previous panel decision, and substituted a new panel decision in its place that affirmed the District Court's dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all the defendants for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs did not petition the Court of Appeals for a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc. Should plaintiffs decide to continue the litigation, their sole remaining option is to petition the United States Supreme Court to review the new Fifth Circuit panel decision issued on April 10, 2019. The deadline for such petition is July 9, 2019. 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 Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 subsequently 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, and counsel for the Special Committee provided a redacted version of the report to plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs objected to the redacted version of the report, and on February 4, 2019, the Travis County court appointed a Special Master to review plaintiffs' objections to the redacted report. On March 22, 2019, the Special Master submitted a report to the Travis County Court recommending that the Court order that the entire Special Committee report be produced. On April 2, 2019 we filed an objection to the Special Master's report and recommendation, and requested a hearing on the matter. The Travis County Court scheduled a hearing for May 15, 2019 regarding our objection. 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 shareholder derivative action. At this time, if the derivative action were to go to trial, we cannot predict how the Travis County Court would 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 our results of operations. Other Matters From time to time we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business, and are also subject to 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 operate 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.

NOTE R — COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

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. 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. On August 20, 2018, Hanger, Inc. and George McHenry filed a petition for panel rehearing and a petition for rehearing en banc with the Court of Appeals. On April 10, 2019 the Court of Appeals granted the petition for panel rehearing, withdrew its previous panel decision, and substituted a new panel decision in its place that affirmed the District Court's dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all the defendants for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs did not petition the Court of Appeals for a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc. Should plaintiffs decide to continue the litigation, their sole remaining option is to petition the United States Supreme Court to review the new Fifth Circuit panel decision issued on April 10, 2019. The deadline for such petition is July 9, 2019.

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 Securities and Exchange Commission (“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 subsequently 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, and counsel for the Special Committee provided a redacted version of the report to plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs objected to the redacted version of the report, and on February 4, 2019, the Travis County court appointed a Special Master to review plaintiffs' objections to the redacted report. On March 22, 2019, the Special Master submitted a report to the Travis County Court recommending that the Court order that the entire Special Committee report be produced. On April 2, 2019 we filed an objection to the Special Master's report and recommendation, and requested a hearing on the matter. The Travis County Court scheduled a hearing for May 15, 2019 regarding our objection. 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 shareholder derivative action. At this time, if the derivative action were to go to trial, we cannot predict how the Travis County Court would 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 our results of operations.

Other Matters

From time to time we are subject to legal proceedings and claims which arise in the ordinary course of our business, and are also subject to 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 operate 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.