XML 21 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.1

Commitments and Contingencies | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
Commitments and Contingencies | Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings From time to time, the Company is a party to, or has a significant relationship to, legal proceedings, lawsuits and other claims. Except as described below, the Company is not aware of any legal proceedings or claims that it believes may have, individually or taken together, a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The Company’s policy is to expense legal costs as they are incurred. Class Action. On May 9, 2016, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a putative class action complaint, Boynton Beach Firefighters’ Pension Fund v. HCP, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01106-JJH, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Company, certain of its officers, HCR ManorCare, Inc. (“HCRMC”), and certain of its officers, asserting violations of the federal securities laws. The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), and alleges that the Company made certain false or misleading statements relating to the value of and risks concerning its investment in HCRMC by allegedly failing to disclose that HCRMC had engaged in billing fraud, as alleged by the U.S. Department of Justice (“DoJ”) in a suit against HCRMC arising from the False Claims Act that the DoJ voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. The plaintiff in the class action suit demands compensatory damages (in an unspecified amount), costs and expenses (including attorneys’ fees and expert fees), and equitable, injunctive, or other relief as the Court deems just and proper. On November 28, 2017, the Court appointed Societe Generale Securities GmbH (SGSS Germany) and the City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief Systems (Birmingham) as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action. The motion to dismiss was fully briefed on May 21, 2018 and oral arguments were held on October 23, 2018. Subsequently, on December 6, 2018, HCRMC and its officers were voluntarily dismissed from the class action lawsuit without prejudice to such claims being refiled. On November 22, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss. On December 20, 2019, Co-Lead plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the Court's judgment. Defendants' opposition brief was filed on February 18, 2020, and Co-Lead Plaintiffs' reply brief was filed on April 2, 2020. The Company believes the suit to be without merit and intends to vigorously defend against it. Derivative Actions. On June 16, 2016 and July 5, 2016, purported stockholders of the Company filed two derivative actions, Subodh v. HCR ManorCare Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00858497-CU-PT-CXC and Stearns v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 30-2016-00861646-CU-MC-CJC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. As both derivative actions contained substantially the same allegations, they have been consolidated into a single action (the “California derivative action”). The consolidated action alleges that the defendants engaged in various acts of wrongdoing, including, among other things, breaching fiduciary duties by publicly making false or misleading statements of fact regarding HCRMC’s finances and prospects and failing to maintain adequate internal controls. On April 18, 2017, the Court approved the parties’ stipulation to stay the case pending disposition of the motion to dismiss the class action litigation. On April 10, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a derivative action, Weldon v. Martin et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-755, in federal court in the Northern District of Ohio, Western Division, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Weldon complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the California derivative action. In addition, the complaint asserts a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, alleging that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement by not disclosing that the Company’s performance issues in 2015 were the direct result of alleged billing fraud at HCRMC. On April 18, 2017, the Court re-assigned and transferred this action to the judge presiding over the related federal securities class action. On July 11, 2017, the Court approved a stipulation by the parties to stay the case pending disposition of the motion to dismiss the class action. On July 21, 2017, a purported stockholder of the Company filed another derivative action, Kelley v. HCR ManorCare, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-01259, in federal court in the Central District of California, against certain of the Company’s current and former directors and officers and HCRMC. The Company is named as a nominal defendant. The Kelley complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in Weldon and in the California derivative action. Like Weldon, the Kelley complaint also additionally alleges that the Company made false statements in its 2016 proxy statement, and asserts a claim for a violation of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act. On November 28, 2017, the federal court in the Central District of California granted Defendants’ motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of Ohio (i.e., the court where the class action and other federal derivative action are pending). The Court in the Northern District of Ohio is currently considering whether to consolidate the Weldon and Kelley actions, appointment of lead plaintiffs and counsel, and whether the stay in Weldon should continue as to either or both actions. The Company’s Board of Directors received letters dated August 17, 2016, April 19, 2017, and April 20, 2017 from private law firms acting on behalf of clients who are purported stockholders of the Company, each asserting allegations similar to those made in the California derivative action matters discussed above. Each letter demands that the Board of Directors take action to assert the Company’s rights. The Board of Directors completed its evaluation and rejected the demand letters in December of 2017. One of the law firms has more recently requested that the Board of Directors reconsider its determination after a ruling on the motion to dismiss in the class action litigation. The Company believes that the plaintiffs lack standing or the lawsuits and demands are without merit, but cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings or reasonably estimate any potential loss at this time. Accordingly, no loss contingency has been recorded for these matters as of March 31, 2020, as the likelihood of loss is not considered probable or estimable.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration