Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2017

Commitments and Contingencies.

Commitments and Contingencies

9.Commitments and Contingencies

The Company, in the ordinary course of business, could be subject to liability claims related to employees and the equipment that it rents and services. Asserted claims are subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of individual matters is not predictable. Certain claims where the loss is probable, a provision is recorded based on the Company’s best estimate. While the ultimate resolution of these actions may have an impact on the Company’s financial results for a particular reporting period, management believes that any such resolution would not have a material adverse effect on the financial position, results of operations or cash flows of the Company and the chance of a negative outcome on outstanding litigation is considered remote.

In May 2016, the Company entered into an amendment to an agreement with a supplier. Between the original agreement and this amendment, certain end users described in the original agreement have entered into a direct agreement with the supplier or have elected to participate in a group purchasing organization agreement with the supplier. As a result, the supplier agreed to make a payment of $2.75 million to the Company. The Company recorded a net gain of $2.75 million related to this settlement which is reflected as a Gain on settlement in the Consolidated Statements of Operations during the six month periods ended June 30, 2016.

On January 13, 2015, the Company filed suit in the Western District of Texas against Hill-Rom Holdings, Inc., Hill-Rom Company, Inc. and Hill-Rom Services, Inc. (the “Defendants”) alleging that the Defendants violated federal and state antitrust laws by willfully and unlawfully engaging in a pattern of exclusionary and predatory conduct in order to foreclose market competition and seeking actual damages, trebled damages and punitive damages.  On March 4, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to transfer the case to another venue.  On March 23, 2015, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case.  On July 2, 2015, the Court denied the Defendants’ motion to transfer.  On October 15, 2015, the Court denied the Defendants motion to dismiss. The litigation is currently in the discovery phase.