COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 5—COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES The Corporation maintains liabilities for certain of its outstanding investigations and litigation. In accordance with the provisions of U.S. GAAP for contingencies, the Corporation records a liability when it is probable that such a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. To the extent that the resolution of contingencies result in actual losses that differ from the Corporation's recorded liabilities, earnings will be charged or credited accordingly. The Corporation cannot know the ultimate outcome of the pending matters described below, and there can be no assurance that the resolution of these matters will not have a material adverse impact on the Corporation's condensed consolidated results of operations, financial position or cash flows. As a part of its ongoing operations, the Corporation is subject to various inspections, audits, inquiries, investigations and similar actions by third parties, as well as by government/regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the laws and regulations to which the Corporation is subject. Further, under the federal False Claims Act, private parties have the right to bring qui tam, or "whistleblower," suits against companies that submit false claims for payments to, or improperly retain overpayments from, the government. The inherently unpredictable nature of legal proceedings may be impacted by various factors, including: (i) the damages sought in the proceedings are unsubstantiated or indeterminate; (ii) discovery is not complete; (iii) the proceeding is in its early stages; (iv) the matters present legal uncertainties; (v) significant facts are in dispute; (vi) a large number of parties are participating in the proceedings (including where it is uncertain how liability, if any, will be shared among defendants); or (vii) the proceedings present a wide range of potential outcomes. The Corporation is the subject of certain investigations and is a defendant in a number of cases, including those discussed below. On November 20, 2013, the complaint filed by a relator, Robert Gadbois, on behalf of the U.S. Government and various state governments, was unsealed by the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island against the Corporation alleging that the Corporation dispensed controlled and non-controlled substances in violation of the CSA and in violation of relevant state laws, and the dispenses were not eligible for payment and that the claims the Corporation submitted to the Government were false within the meaning of the FCA. The U.S. Government and the various state governments declined to intervene in this case. On March 4, 2011, a relator, Mark Silver, on behalf of the U.S. Government and various state governments, filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey against the Corporation alleging that the Corporation violated the FCA and Federal Anti-Kickback Statute through its agreements to provide prescription drugs to nursing homes under certain Medicare and Medicaid programs. On February 19, 2013, the U.S. Government declined to intervene in the case. The complaint has been amended several times, most recently on November 12, 2013, and thereafter served upon the Corporation. On December 6, 2013, the Corporation moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and on September 29, 2014, the court declined to dismiss the case, but limited the relevant time period for which claims could be brought against the Corporation. On December 22, 2015, Silver and the Corporation filed a joint motion with the court for an order dismissing with prejudice all successor liability claims against the Corporation for or regarding the conduct of Chem Rx Corporation. The court has not yet ruled on the motion or entered the order of dismissal. On March 4, 2016 and April 1, 2016, the Corporation filed motions to dismiss and for summary judgment, respectively, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FCA prior public disclosure bar. The court has not yet ruled on the motions. The Corporation intends to vigorously defend itself against the remaining allegations in the case. On September 10, 2014, the Corporation filed a Complaint in Jefferson Circuit Court in Louisville, Kentucky against AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC") for failure of ABDC to comply with certain pricing and rebate provisions of the Previous Prime Vendor Agreement ("Previous PVA"). The Corporation subsequently filed a First Amended Verified Complaint on September 26, 2014 asserting additional breaches of the Previous PVA . As a result of ABDC's failure to comply with certain pricing and rebate provisions, the Corporation had recorded a receivable of $40.8 million related to these disputes at December 31, 2014. Separately, as of December 31, 2014, the Corporation had recorded $12.2 million for additional rebates owing from ABDC which at that time the Corporation believed were not in dispute and had previously been paid by ABDC in all the prior quarters. These receivables totaled $53.0 million and were included in prepaids and other assets in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2014. During the period of January 1, 2015 through March 31, 2015, an additional $19.3 million, net of payments received, of certain rebates and guarantees owed by ABDC under the Previous PVA were recognized, which brought the total gross receivable to $72.3 million at December 31, 2015. On March, 2, 2015, the Corporation notified ABDC of its intent to terminate the Previous PVA effective April 1, 2015. The Corporation also announced that it had entered into the Cardinal Health Prime Vendor Agreement ("Cardinal Health PVA") effective April 1, 2015. On March 3, 2015, the Corporation received a letter from ABDC terminating the Previous PVA effective immediately based upon the Corporation's alleged failure to pay certain disputed miscellaneous charges and the Corporation's signing of the Cardinal Health PVA. The Corporation believes ABDC did not have the right to immediately terminate the contract pursuant to the terms of the Previous PVA. On March 6 and March 13, 2015, the Corporation withheld from ABDC normal recurring payments for drug purchases of approximately $48.8 million. On May 18, 2015, ABDC filed an Amended Counterclaim seeking additional financial damages against the Corporation and asserted claims against two counter-defendants. On November 23, 2015, the Corporation filed its Third Amended Complaint against ABDC for additional financial damages, amounts overcharged by ABDC, and for certain rebates not paid by ABDC under the Previous PVA. On April 1, 2016, the Jefferson Circuit Court ruled that the Corporation could not set-off payment the amounts that ABDC owed the Corporation against amounts that ABDC had invoiced the Corporation. Instead the Corporation must first pay ABDC and continue the litigation against ABDC to collect any amounts owed to the Corporation by ABDC upon the conclusion of the entire lawsuit. As a result, the Corporation owes approximately $48.8 million of payments, along with post-judgment interest for drug purchases in the first quarter of 2015. The Corporation intends to continue the litigation in the Jefferson Circuit Court against ABDC. On April 11, 2016, the Corporation filed a Motion to Alter and Amend the April 1, 2016 order of the Jefferson Circuit Court asking the judge to reconsider the final and appealable aspect of the order. If the April 1, 2016 order is not reconsidered, the Corporation intends to appeal the entire decision of the trial court to the Kentucky Court of Appeals. At its option, if the trial court does not reconsider its ruling, the Corporation may obtain a bond during the pendency to appeal in lieu of paying ABDC. The Jefferson Circuit Court's ruling on the right to set-off does not in any way adversely affect the Corporation's claims against ABDC and the Corporation's ability to pursue all of its claims against ABDC in the Jefferson Circuit Court. Amounts owed to and from ABDC were previously offset resulting in a net receivable of $23.5 million from ABDC in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2015 classified as long-term assets. As a result of the ruling on the right to set-off, the Corporation has grossed up the receivable from ABDC to $72.3 million and the payable to $48.8 million. Accordingly, the $72.3 million receivable from ABDC is reflected in other long-term assets and the $48.8 million payable is reflected in other long-term liabilities in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of March 31, 2016. The Corporation has claims for additional damages resulting from ABDC's breaches of the Previous PVA. The Corporation intends to vigorously pursue its claims. At this time, the Corporation is unable to determine the ultimate impact of these litigation proceedings on its condensed consolidated financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity. The litigation with ABDC could continue for an extended period of time, likely longer than 12 months. The Corporation cannot provide any assurances about the outcome of the litigation. In addition, the Corporation is involved in certain legal actions and regulatory investigations arising in the ordinary course of business. At March 31, 2016, the Corporation had accrued approximately $27.0 million related to the pending legal actions and investigations. |