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 2016 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 fulfillment 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. If the specified financial criteria are satisfied, we will be obligated to pay an additional $9.2 million.

In accordance with business combination accounting guidance, contingent consideration, such as earn-outs, 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 taken as a whole. We recorded $8.6 million and $9.2 million in earn-out liabilities as of March 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively, which are included in other accrued liabilities in our condensed, 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. Plaintiff Duran moved to certify a meal period premium class, a rest period premium class and a class under California’s Business and Professions Code §§17200 et seq., on January 9, 2014. On May 7, 2014, we obtained partial summary judgment, dismissing four of eight claims of the complaint, including the claims for failure to pay regular and overtime wages. On June 24, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiff’s Motion. The plaintiff continues to have a Private Attorney Generals Act ("PAGA") claim. On or about January 10, 2017, VCA filed a motion to prevent Duran from pursuing his PAGA action. That motion is currently pending before the court. We intend to continue to vigorously defend against the remaining claim 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 VCA 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 VCA 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. This lawsuit and the Duran case above are related and are before the same Judge. In September 2014, the court issued an order staying the La Kimba Bradsbery lawsuit. On or about August 23, 2016, the Court lifted the stay and discovery is proceeding. We intend to vigorously defend against the Bradsbery 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 March 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 sought to assert claims on behalf of the plaintiff and other individuals who purchased similar goods and services from our animal hospitals and alleged, among other allegations,


10.	Commitments and Contingencies, continued

that we improperly charged such individuals for “biohazard waste management” in connection with the services performed. The lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. VCA successfully had the venue transferred to the Southern District of California. Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on February 12, 2016. On May 16, 2016, VCA filed its opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. On June 10, 2016, VCA filed a motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiffs’ individual claims. The Honorable Christina Snyder issued her decision on September 12, 2016, granting Defendants’ summary judgment motion and denying Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as moot. On October 13, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice to Appeal. We intend to continue 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.

Following the announcement of the execution of the Merger Agreement, three putative stockholder class action complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California relating to the proposed Merger with Mars: (1) Hight vs. VCA Inc., et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00289, filed February 15, 2017, which named the Company, the Company’s Board of Directors, Mars, Merger Sub and Acquiror, as defendants, and which alleges, among other allegations, that (a) the consideration to be paid to the Company’s stockholders in connection with the proposed Merger is inadequate, (b) the Company’s Board of Directors and management have a conflict of interest due to continued employment and/or change in control payments, (c) the proposed Merger contains deal protection devices that preclude other bidders from making successful competing offers for the Company, and (d) the disclosures included in the proxy statement filed by the Company contain materially false or misleading statements or omissions; (2) Moran vs. VCA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01502, filed February 23, 2017, which named the Company and the Company’s Board of Directors as defendants, and which alleges, among other allegations, that the disclosures included in the proxy statement filed by the Company contain materially false or misleading statements or omissions; and (3) Krieger vs. VCA Inc., et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-01790, filed March 6, 2017, which named the Company and the Company’s Board of Directors as defendants, and which alleges, among other allegations, that the disclosures included in the proxy statement filed by the Company contain materially false or misleading statements or omissions. Each of the actions assert claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The actions seek, among other things, (a) to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with the shareholder vote on the Merger or completing the Merger on the agreed upon terms, (b) rescission of the Merger or an award of rescissory damages, to the extent the proposed Merger has already been consummated, and (c) an award of plaintiff’s costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, and other equitable relief as the court deems proper.

On March 6, 2017, the plaintiff in the Krieger action filed a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the shareholder vote on the merger, which motion was withdrawn after the Company filed a supplement to the proxy statement on March 13, 2017 addressing the alleged disclosure claims in these actions, without admitting any liability or wrongdoing and specifically denying that any additional disclosures were required under applicable law. On March 28, 2017, our stockholders voted to approve the Merger. Subsequent to the filing of the supplement to the proxy statement and the stockholder vote, the plaintiffs in the actions agreed to file a stipulation of dismissal with prejudice, acknowledging that the claims arising from the Merger identified in their complaints have become moot. As the plaintiffs in actions assert that the prosecution of the actions caused VCA to file the supplemental proxy statement plaintiffs’ counsel may assert a claim for attorneys’ fees and expenses in connection with the common benefit provided to our stockholders as a result of the filing of the supplemental proxy statement, plaintiffs’ counsel intend to petition the court for such fees and expenses if their claims for fees cannot be resolved through negotiations. If and when the stipulation of dismissal is filed, the plaintiffs will voluntarily dismiss their complaints, with prejudice, and the actions shall be so dismissed. Until such time, the Company will continue to vigorously defend against all claims asserted.

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, results of operations, or cash flows.