On June 10, 2010, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (the “District Court”) against the Company and certain of our current and former senior executives. Additional putative securities class actions were filed in the District Court on July 14, July 16, and July 28, 2010.

On January 18, 2011, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint (the “Securities Complaint”) which supersedes the earlier-filed securities class action complaints. The Securities Complaint alleges that the defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose material facts about our business, financial condition, operations and prospects, particularly relating to our policies and practices regarding home therapy visits under the Medicare home health prospective payment system and the related alleged impact on our business, financial condition, operations and prospects. The Securities Complaint seeks a determination that the action may be maintained as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's securities between August 2, 2005 and September 28, 2010 and an unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants moved to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On June 28, 2012, the District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint. On July 26, 2012, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration, which the District Court denied on April 9, 2013.

On May 3, 2013, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the Securities Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (the “Fifth Circuit”). On October 2, 2014, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit issued a decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. On October 16, 2014, all defendants filed a petition with the Fifth Circuit to review the three-judge panel's decision en banc, or as a whole court. On December 29, 2014, the Fifth Circuit denied the defendants' motion for en banc review of the Fifth Circuit panel's decision reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. The case then returned to the District Court for further proceedings. On March 30, 2015, the defendants filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari (the “Petition”) with the United States Supreme Court asking the Supreme Court to consider whether the Fifth Circuit erred in reversing the District Court's dismissal of the Securities Complaint. The Supreme Court denied the Petition on June 29, 2015, which did not affect the ongoing proceedings before the District Court, including the District Court's consideration of a motion filed on April 3, 2015, by the Co-Lead Plaintiffs for leave to amend the Securities Complaint, which motion was granted by the District Court. On December 15, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Co-Lead Plaintiffs' First Amended Consolidated Complaint. All discovery in the case is currently stayed pursuant to federal law. No assurances can be given about the timing or outcome of this matter.

On July 25, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against us in which three former employees allege wage and hour law violations. The former employees claim that they were not paid overtime for all hours worked over 40 hours in violation of the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), as well as the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. More specifically, they allege they were paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in their misclassification as exempt employees, thereby denying them overtime pay. Moreover, in response to a Company motion arguing that plaintiffs' complaint was deficient in that it was ambiguous and failed to provide fair notice of the claims asserted and plaintiffs' opposition thereto, the Court, on April 8, 2013, held that the complaint adequately raises general allegations that the plaintiffs were not paid overtime for all hours worked in a week over 40, which may include claims for unpaid overtime under other theories of liability, such as alleged off-the-clock work, in addition to plaintiffs' more clearly stated allegations based on misclassification. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Pennsylvania statute. On October 8, 2013, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion for equitable tolling requesting that the statute of limitations for claims under the FLSA for plaintiffs who opt-in to the lawsuit be tolled from September 24, 2012, the date upon which plaintiffs filed their original motion for conditional certification, until 90 days after any notice of this lawsuit is issued following conditional certification. Following a motion for reconsideration filed by the Company, on December 3, 2013, the Court modified this order, holding that putative class members' FLSA claims are tolled from October 29, 2012 through the date of the Court's order on plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification. On January 13, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs' July 10, 2013 motion for conditional certification of their FLSA claims and authorized issuance of notice to putative class members to provide them an opportunity to opt in to the action. On April 17, 2014, that notice was mailed to putative class members. The period within which putative class members were permitted to opt into the action expired on July 16, 2014.

On September 10, 2014, the plaintiffs in the Connecticut case filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add a new claim under the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act (“KWHA”) alleging that the Company did not pay certain home health clinicians working in the Commonwealth of Kentucky all of the overtime wages they were owed, either because the Company misclassified them as exempt from overtime or, while treating them as overtime eligible, did not properly pay them overtime for all hours worked over 40 in a week. On behalf of themselves and a class of current and former employees they allege are similarly situated, plaintiffs seek attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back five years before the filing of their original complaint under the KWHA. On October 1, 2014, the Company filed an opposition to the plaintiffs' motion to amend. On October 15, 2014, plaintiffs filed a reply brief in support of their motion. On December 12, 2014, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint to add the claims under the KWHA. The Company and the plaintiffs agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the Connecticut case, and on February 23, 2015 filed a joint motion to stay proceedings for six months to pursue that process, which was granted by the Court on February 24, 2015.

On June 10, 2015, the Company and plaintiffs participated in a mediation whereby they agreed to fully resolve all of plaintiffs' claims in the lawsuit for $8.0 million, subject to approval by the Court. The settlement agreement will be submitted to the Court for preliminary approval and plaintiffs will request certification of Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes for the sole purpose of this proposed settlement. If the Court grants preliminary approval, notice will be issued to members of the settlement classes to provide them with an opportunity to object to the settlement and, in the case of members of the Pennsylvania and Kentucky classes, opt out of the settlement. Following this notice period, the Court will hold a final fairness hearing for the purpose of considering objections and deciding whether to grant final approval of the settlement. As of September 30, 2015, we had an accrual of $8.0 million for this matter. On January 29, 2016, the Court approved the final settlement of this case. The settlement became effective on February 26, 2016. As a result of the final amount calculated by the settlement administrator based on claims timely submitted, we have reduced our accrual to $5.3 million as of December 31, 2015.

On September 13, 2012, a putative collective and class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against us in which a former employee alleges wage and hour law violations. The former employee claims she was paid on both a per-visit and an hourly basis, and that such a pay scheme resulted in her misclassification as an exempt employee, thereby denying her overtime. The plaintiff alleges violations of federal and state law and seeks damages under the FLSA and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff seeks class certification of similar employees who were or are employed in Illinois and seeks attorneys' fees, back wages and liquidated damages going back three years under the FLSA and three years under the Illinois statute. On May 28, 2013, the Court granted the Company's motion to stay the case pending resolution of class certification issues and dispositive motions in the earlier-filed Connecticut case referenced above. On December 23, 2015 the parties agreed to explore the possibility of a mediated settlement of the Illinois case, and a mediation is scheduled to occur on April 18, 2016.

We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the securities litigation described above. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in the securities litigation matter but, if decided adverse to the Company, its impact could be material. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the securities matter described above or the impact of any of the inquiry or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate.

On April 2, 2015, Frontier Home Health and Hospice, L.L.C. (“Frontier”) filed a complaint against us in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut alleging breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and unfair and deceptive trade practices under Conn. Gen. Stat. §42-110b. Frontier acquired our interest in five home health and four hospice care centers in Wyoming and Idaho in April 2014. The complaint alleges that certain of the hospice patients on service at the time of the acquisition did not meet Medicare eligibility requirements and that we breached certain of the representations and warranties under the purchase agreement and therefore, the businesses were worth less than the purchase price. Under the complaint, Frontier seeks declaratory judgment from the District Court that, under the terms of the purchase agreement with Frontier, we are obligated to determine the amount of the alleged Medicare overpayments and reimburse the government for the same in a timely manner, as well as unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and pre- and post-judgment interest.

We are unable to assess the probable outcome or reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, arising from the Frontier litigation described above. The Company has engaged an independent auditing firm to perform a clinical audit of the hospice locations in question and intends to defend itself in the Frontier litigation matter. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the audit, the Frontier litigation matter described above or the impact of any of the audit or litigation matters on the Company, its consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows, which could be material, individually or in the aggregate. In accordance with our corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General-HHS (“OIG”) as discussed below under “Other Investigative Matters – Corporate Integrity Agreement”, we have notified the OIG of this matter.

On May 21, 2015, we received a Subpoena Duces Tecum (“Subpoena”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. The Subpoena requests the delivery of information regarding 53 identified hospice patients to the United States Attorney's Office for the District of Massachusetts. It also requests the delivery of documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations and related compliance activities. The Subpoena generally covers the period from January 1, 2011, through the present. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. No assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this investigation.

On November 3, 2015, we received a civil investigative demand (“CID”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to the federal False Claims Act relating to claims submitted to Medicare and/or Medicaid for hospice services provided through designated facilities in the Morgantown, West Virginia area. The CID requests the delivery of information to the United States Attorney's Office for the Northern District of West Virginia regarding 66 identified hospice patients, as well as documents relating to our hospice clinical and business operations in the Morgantown area. The CID generally covers the period from January 1, 2009 through August 31, 2015. We are fully cooperating with the U.S. Department of Justice with respect to this investigation. No assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of this investigation.

In addition to the matters referenced in this note, we are involved in legal actions in the normal course of business, some of which seek monetary damages, including claims for punitive damages. We do not believe that these normal course actions, when finally concluded and determined, will have a material impact on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

On August 24, 2015, Michael Bonhette, an alleged shareholder of the Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, purporting to assert claims on behalf of the Company against certain of our officers and directors. We were named as a nominal defendant in this action. The derivative complaint alleged that certain of our officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the Company by agreeing to allegedly unlawful provisions in the Company's Credit Agreement dated as of October 22, 2012, as amended (the “Prior Credit Agreement”), and the Company's Second Lien Credit Agreement dated as of July 28, 2014 (the “Second Lien Credit Agreement”). Each of the Prior Credit Agreement and the Second Lien Credit Agreement were terminated on August 28, 2015.

On October 14, 2015, the United Stated District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana issued an order granting a motion for dismissal voluntarily filed by the plaintiffs in this matter. Effective as of such date, the derivative lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice and at the cost of the plaintiffs.

On April 23, 2014, with no admissions of liability on our part, we entered into a settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice relating to certain of our clinical and business operations. Concurrently with our entry into this agreement, we entered into a corporate integrity agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General-HHS (“OIG”). The CIA formalizes various aspects of our already existing ethics and compliance programs and contains other requirements designed to help ensure our ongoing compliance with federal health care program requirements. Among other things, the CIA requires us to maintain our existing compliance program, executive compliance committee and compliance committee of the Board of Directors; provide certain compliance training; continue screening new and current employees to ensure they are eligible to participate in federal health care programs; engage an independent review organization to perform certain auditing and reviews and prepare certain reports regarding our compliance with federal health care programs, our billing submissions to federal health care programs and our compliance and risk mitigation programs; and provide certain reports and management certifications to the OIG. Additionally, the CIA specifically requires that we report substantial overpayments that we discover we have received from federal health care programs, as well as probable violations of federal health care laws. Upon breach of the CIA, we could become liable for payment of certain stipulated penalties, or could be excluded from participation in federal health care programs. The corporate integrity agreement has a term of five years.

During the course of our compliance with the CIA we have identified several such reportable events and have notified the OIG as required. The final resolution of these matters is still pending. As of December 31, 2015, we have an accrual in the amount of $4.7 million to cover all repayments of extrapolated overpayments, damages and penalties that we believe could be assessed.

On March 1 and March 2, 2015, we provided official notice under federal and state data privacy laws concerning the outcome of an extensive risk management process to locate and verify our large computer inventory. The process identified approximately 142 encrypted computers and laptops for which reports were required under federal and state data privacy laws. The devices at issue were originally assigned to Company clinicians and other team members who left the Company between 2011 and 2014. We reported these devices to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, state agencies, and individuals whose information may be involved, as required under applicable law because we could not rule out unauthorized access to patient data on the devices. The Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“OCR”) is reviewing our compliance with applicable laws, as is typical for any data breach involving more than 500 individuals. We are cooperating with OCR in its review and if any other regulatory reviews are formally commenced, will cooperate with applicable regulatory authorities. In accordance with our CIA, we have notified the OIG of this matter.

From time to time, in the ordinary course of business, we are subject to audits under various governmental programs in which third party firms engaged by CMS conduct extensive review of claims data to identify potential improper payments under the Medicare program.

In January 2010, our subsidiary that provides home health services in Dayton, Ohio received from a Medicare Program Safeguard Contractor (“PSC”) a request for records regarding 137 claims submitted by the subsidiary paid from January 2, 2008 through November 10, 2009 (the “Claim Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. Based on the PSC's findings for 114 of the claims, which were extrapolated to all claims for home health services provided by the Dayton subsidiary paid during the Claim Period, on March 9, 2011, the Medicare Administrative Contractor (“MAC”) for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment of approximately $5.6 million. We dispute these findings, and our Dayton subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. A consolidated administrative law judge (“ALJ”) hearing was held in late March 2013. In January 2014, the ALJ found fully in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on 74 appeals and partially in favor of our Dayton subsidiary on eight appeals. Taking into account the ALJ's decision, certain determinations that our Dayton subsidiary decided not to appeal as well as certain determinations made by the MAC, of the 114 claims that were originally extrapolated by the MAC, 76 claims have now been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in full, 10 claims have been decided in favor of our Dayton subsidiary in part, and 28 claims have been decided against or not appealed by our Dayton subsidiary. The ALJ has ordered the MAC to recalculate the extrapolation amount based on the ALJ's decision. The Medicare Appeals Council can decide on its own motion to review the ALJ's decisions. As of December 31, 2015, we have recorded no liability with respect to the pending appeals as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

In July 2010, our subsidiary that provides hospice services in Florence, South Carolina received from a Zone Program Integrity Contractor (“ZPIC”) a request for records regarding a sample of 30 beneficiaries who received services from the subsidiary during the period of January 1, 2008 through March 31, 2010 (the “Review Period”) to determine whether the underlying services met pertinent Medicare payment requirements. We acquired the hospice operations subject to this review on August 1, 2009; the Review Period covers time periods both before and after our ownership of these hospice operations. Based on the ZPIC's findings for 16 beneficiaries, which were extrapolated to all claims for hospice services provided by the Florence subsidiary billed during the Review Period, on June 6, 2011, the MAC for the subsidiary issued a notice of overpayment seeking recovery from our subsidiary of an alleged overpayment. We dispute these findings, and our Florence subsidiary has filed appeals through the Original Medicare Standard Appeals Process, in which we are seeking to have those findings overturned. An ALJ hearing was held in early January 2015. On January 18, 2016 we received a letter dated January 6, 2016 referencing the ALJ hearing decision for the overpayment issued on June 6, 2011. The decision was partially favorable with a new overpayment amount of $3.7 million with a balance owed of $5.6 million including interest based on 9 disputed claims (originally 16). We filed an appeal to the Medicare Appeals Council on the remaining 9 disputed claims and also argued that the statistical method used to select the sample was not valid. No assurances can be given as to the timing or outcome of the Medicare Appeals Council decision. In the event we pay any amount of this alleged overpayment, we are indemnified by the prior owners of the hospice operations for amounts relating to the period prior to August 1, 2009. As of December 31, 2015, we have recorded no liability for this claim as we do not believe that an estimate of a reasonably possible loss or range of loss can be made at this time.

We have leased office space at various locations under non-cancelable agreements that expire between 2016 and 2026, and require various minimum annual rentals. Our typical operating leases are for lease terms of one to seven years and may include, in addition to base rental amounts, certain landlord pass-through costs for our pro-rata share of the lessor's real estate taxes, utilities and common area maintenance costs. Some of our operating leases contain escalation clauses, in which annual minimum base rentals increase over the term of the lease.

Total minimum rental commitments as of December 31, 2015 are as follows (amounts in millions):

	2016	$	23.5
	2017		16.0
	2018		11.2
	2019		7.4
	2020		4.3
	Future years		5.5
	Total	$	67.9

Rent expense for non-cancelable operating leases was $23.7 million, $26.5 million and $29.8 million for 2015, 2014 and 2013.

We are obligated for certain costs associated with our insurance programs, including employee health, workers' compensation and professional liability. While we maintain various insurance programs to cover these risks, we are self-insured for a substantial portion of our potential claims. We recognize our obligations associated with these costs, up to specified deductible limits in the period in which a claim is incurred, including with respect to both reported claims and claims incurred but not reported. These costs have generally been estimated based on historical data of our claims experience. Such estimates, and the resulting reserves, are reviewed and updated by us on a quarterly basis.

The following table presents details of our insurance programs, including amounts accrued for the periods indicated (amounts in millions) in accrued expenses in our accompanying balance sheets. The amounts accrued below represent our total estimated liability for individual claims that are less than our noted insurance coverage amounts, which can include outstanding claims and claims incurred but not reported.

		As of December 31,
	Type of Insurance		2015		2014
	Health insurance	$	11.7	$	11.2
	Workers' compensation		23.9		20.8
	Professional liability		4.1		3.9
			39.7		35.9
	Less: long-term portion		(0.9)		(1.0)
		$	38.8	$	34.9

The retention limit per claim for our health insurance, worker's compensation and professional liability is $0.9 million, $0.5 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

We have commitments related to employment contracts with a number of our senior executives. These contracts generally commit us to pay severance benefits under certain circumstances.

We are subject to various other types of claims and disputes arising in the ordinary course of our business. While the resolution of such issues is not presently determinable, we believe that the ultimate resolution of such matters will not have a significant effect on our consolidated financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.