Commitments and Contingencies

We have certain commitments including operating leases, purchase agreements and acquisition agreements. These items are discussed in detail in our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our 2013 Annual Report on Form 10-K. We also have contingencies as follows:


a.	Earn-Out Payments

We have contractual arrangements in connection with certain acquisitions, whereby additional cash may be paid to former owners of acquired companies upon attainment of specified financial criteria as set forth in the respective agreements. The amount to be paid cannot be determined until the earn-out periods have expired and the attainment of criteria is established. If the specified financial criteria are attained, we will be obligated to pay an additional $5.2 million.

In accordance with business combination accounting guidance, contingent consideration, such as earn-out agreements, are recognized as part of the consideration transferred on the acquisition date. A liability is initially recorded based upon its acquisition date fair value. The changes in fair value are recognized in earnings where applicable for each reporting period. The fair value is determined using a contractually stated formula using either a multiple of revenue or Earnings Before Interest, Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization ("EBITDA"). The formulas used to determine the estimated fair value are Level 3 inputs. The changes in fair value were immaterial to our condensed, consolidated financial statements when taken as a whole. We recorded $3.7 million and $2.2 million in earn-out liabilities as of September 30, 2014 and December 31, 2013, respectively, which are included in other accrued liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets.


b.	Legal Proceedings

On May 29, 2013, a former veterinary assistant at one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, titled Jorge Duran vs. VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants employed by us in California, and alleges, among other allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys’ fees and costs. On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing 4 of the 8 claims of the complaint, including the claims for failure to pay regular and overtime wages. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claims in this action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

On July 16, 2014, two additional former veterinary assistants filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, titled La Kimba Bradsbery and Cheri Brakensiek vs. Vicar Operating, Inc., et. al. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of current and former veterinary assistants, kennel assistants, and client service representatives employed by us in California, and alleges, among other allegations, that we improperly failed to pay regular and overtime wages, improperly failed to provide proper meal and rest periods, improperly failed to pay reporting time pay, improperly failed to reimburse for certain business-related expenses, and engaged in unfair business practices. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys’ fees and costs. We currently expect that these two actions will be consolidated with, or related before the same judge hearing, the Duran action discussed above. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

On July 12, 2013, an individual who provided courier services with respect to our laboratory clients in California filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Santa Clara - San Jose Branch, titled Carlos Lopez vs. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, Antech Diagnostics, Inc., et. al. Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC, a co-defendant in the lawsuit, is a company with which Antech has contracted to provide courier services in California. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of individuals who were engaged by Logistics Delivery Solutions, LLC to perform such courier services and alleges, among other allegations, that Logistics Delivery Solutions and Antech Diagnostics improperly classified the plaintiffs as independent contractors, improperly failed to pay overtime wages, and improperly failed to provide proper meal periods. The lawsuit seeks damages, statutory penalties, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. We filed our answer to the complaint on September 13, 2013. Written discovery is currently ongoing. We filed a motion for summary judgment on July 18, 2014, and on October 3, 2014 the court denied our request for summary judgment. We are


10.	Commitments and Contingencies, continued

continuing to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

On May 12, 2014, an individual client who purchased goods and services from one of our animal hospitals filed a purported class action lawsuit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, titled Tony M. Graham vs. VCA Antech, Inc. and VCA Animal Hospitals, Inc. The lawsuit seeks to assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods and services from our animal hospitals and alleges, among other allegations, that we improperly charged such individuals for “biohazard waste management” in connection with the services performed. The lawsuit seeks compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. This case is in an early procedural stage and we intend to vigorously defend this action. At this time, we are unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of possible loss, but do not believe losses, if any, would have a material effect on our results of operations or financial position taken as a whole.

In addition to the lawsuits described above, we are party to ordinary routine legal proceedings and claims incidental to our business, but we are not currently a party to any legal proceeding that we believe would have a material adverse effect on our financial position.


c.	Other Contingencies

On May 14, 2014, the headquarters of our Medical Technology business in Carlsbad, California was severely damaged by wildfires. There were no injuries to personnel. However, the fire caused severe damage to a substantial portion of the facility. We have worked diligently to satisfy customer requirements and to prevent supply disruptions. We maintain standard insurance coverage for both property damage and business interruption losses. For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2014, we recorded approximately $0.4 million and $17.9 million, respectively, in estimated losses in connection with this event, primarily associated with property damage. This amount is included in operating expenses in our condensed, consolidated income statements, offset by the related insurance recovery of the same amount. We have received insurance proceeds to date of $12.0 million. As of September 30, 2014, we have recorded receivables of $5.9 million remaining from expected insurance recoveries. We continue to assess damages and insurance coverage and we currently do not expect our losses to exceed the applicable insurance coverage.