Proceeds originally received at time of divestiture

  
agencies to collect the GPT and an order requiring BCC to pay GPT back taxes, interest, and penalties for the eight-year period prior to the filing of the complaint.Because the GPT is constitutionally imposed in lieu of certain other taxes, BCC has filed protective tax refund claims with the City of Los Angeles, the California Department of Health Care Services and the Franchise Tax Board to protect its rights to recover certain taxes previously paid should BCC eventually be determined to be subject to the GPT for the tax periods at issue in the litigation.In March 2018, the Superior Court denied BCC's motion for judgment on the pleadings and similar motions brought by other entities. BCC filed a motion for summary judgment with the Superior Court, which was heard in October 2020. In December 2020, the Superior Court granted BCC’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit. In November 2021, the plaintiff appealed the order granting our motion for summary judgment. Our responding brief was filed in February 2022. We estimate that the appeal will be heard sometime in 2022. We intend to vigorously defend the appeal of this lawsuit.Express Scripts, Inc. Pharmacy Benefit Management LitigationIn March 2016, we filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts, Inc. (“Express Scripts”), our vendor at the time for PBM services, captioned Anthem, Inc. v. Express Scripts, Inc., in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit seeks to recover over $14,800 in damages for pharmacy pricing that is higher than competitive benchmark pricing under the agreement between the parties (the “ESI PBM Agreement”), over $158 in damages related to operational breaches, as well as various declarations under the ESI PBM Agreement, including that Express Scripts: (i) breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith and to agree in writing to new pricing terms; (ii) was required to provide competitive benchmark pricing to us through the term of the ESI PBM Agreement; (iii) has breached the ESI PBM Agreement; and (iv) is required under the ESI PBM Agreement to provide post-termination services, at competitive benchmark pricing, for one year following any termination. Express Scripts has disputed our contractual claims and is seeking declaratory judgments: (i) regarding the timing of the periodic pricing review under the ESI PBM Agreement, and (ii) that it has no obligation to ensure that we receive any specific level of pricing, that we have no contractual right to any change in pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement and that its sole obligation is to negotiate proposed pricing terms in good faith. In the alternative, Express Scripts claims that we have been unjustly enriched by its payment of $4,675 at the time we entered into the ESI PBM Agreement. In March 2017, the District Court granted our motion to dismiss Express Scripts’ counterclaims for (i) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and (ii) unjust enrichment with prejudice. After such action, the only remaining claims were for breach of contract and declaratory relief. In August 2021, Express Scripts filed a motion for summary judgment, which we opposed. In March 2022, the District Court granted in part and denied in part Express Scripts' motion for summary judgment. The District Court dismissed our declaratory judgment claim, our breach of contract claim for failure to prove damages and most of our operational breach claims. As a result of the summary judgment decision, the only remaining claims as of the filing of this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q are (i) our operational breach claim based on Express Scripts' prior authorization processes and (ii) Express Scripts' counterclaim for breach of the market check provision of the ESI PBM Agreement. We intend to appeal the decision at the appropriate time, vigorously pursue our claims and defend against counterclaims, which we believe are without merit; however, the ultimate outcome cannot be presently determined.In re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA LitigationWe are a defendant in a class action lawsuit that was initially filed in June 2016 against Anthem, Inc. and Express Scripts, which has been consolidated into a single multi-district lawsuit captioned In Re Express Scripts/Anthem ERISA Litigation, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The consolidated complaint was filed by plaintiffs against Express Scripts and us on behalf of all persons who are participants in or beneficiaries of any ERISA or non-ERISA healthcare plan from December 1, 2009 to December 31, 2019 in which we provided prescription drug benefits through the ESI PBM Agreement and paid a percentage based co-insurance payment in the course of using that prescription drug benefit. The plaintiffs allege that we breached our duties, either under ERISA or with respect to the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied in the health plans, (i) by failing to adequately monitor Express Scripts’ pricing under the ESI PBM Agreement, (ii) by placing our own pecuniary interest above the best interests of our insureds by allegedly agreeing to higher pricing in the ESI PBM Agreement in exchange for the purchase price for our NextRx PBM business, and (iii) with -27-
