In addition to commitments and obligations incurred in the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and legal proceedings, including claims from customers and vendors, pending and potential legal actions for damages, governmental investigations, and other matters. The Company and its affiliates are parties to the legal claims and proceedings described below. The Company is vigorously defending itself against those claims and in those proceedings. Significant developments in those matters are described below. If the Company is unsuccessful in defending, or if it determines to settle, any of these matters, it may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction and/or be forced to change how it operates its business, which could have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations.

Unless otherwise stated, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or a range of possible loss for the matters described below. Often, the Company is unable to determine that a loss is probable, or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or a range of loss, for a claim because of the limited information available and the potential effects of future events and decisions by third parties, such as courts and regulators, that will determine the ultimate resolution of the claim. Many of the matters described are at preliminary stages, raise novel theories of liability or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. It is not uncommon for claims to remain unresolved over many years. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and whether it can make a reasonable estimate of the loss or range of loss. When the Company determines that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, it records a liability for an estimated amount. The Company also provides disclosure when it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed its recorded liability. Amounts included within “Claims and litigation charges, net” in the Consolidated Statement of Operations consist of estimated loss contingencies related to opioid-related litigation matters.

The Company and its affiliates have been sued as defendants in many cases asserting claims related to distribution of controlled substances. They have been named as defendants along with other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and retail pharmacy chains. The plaintiffs in these actions have included state attorneys general, county and municipal governments, school districts, tribal nations, hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals. These actions have been filed in state and federal courts throughout the U.S., and in Puerto Rico and Canada. They seek monetary damages and other forms of relief based on a variety of causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, as well as alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state and federal controlled substances laws, and other statutes.

On July 21, 2021, the Company and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors (collectively “Distributors”) announced that they had negotiated a comprehensive proposed settlement agreement which, if all conditions were satisfied, would result in the settlement of a substantial majority of opioid lawsuits filed by state and local governmental entities. On February 25, 2022, the Distributors determined that there was sufficient State and subdivision participation to proceed with an agreement ("Settlement") to settle a substantial majority of opioids-related lawsuits filed against the Distributors by U.S. states, territories, and local governmental entities. As previously disclosed, 46 of 49 eligible states and their participating subdivisions, as well as the District of Columbia and all eligible territories (collectively, “Settling Governmental Entities”), have agreed to join the Settlement. To date, over 98% of eligible political subdivisions that have brought opioid-related suits against the Company, as calculated by population under the agreement, have agreed to participate in the settlement or have had their claims addressed by state legislation.

The Settlement became effective on April 2, 2022. If all conditions to the Settlement are satisfied, including the receipt of approval by relevant courts of consent decrees to dismiss the lawsuits, the Distributors would pay the Settling Governmental Entities up to approximately $19.5 billion over 18 years, with up to approximately $7.4 billion to be paid by the Company for its 38.1% portion. Under the Settlement, a minimum of 85% of the settlement payments must be used by state and local governmental entities to remediate the opioid epidemic. Most of the remaining percentage relates to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, and would be payable over a shorter time period. Under the Settlement, the Distributors will establish a clearinghouse to consolidate their controlled-substance distribution data, which will be available to the settling U.S. states to use as part of their anti-diversion efforts. The Settlement provides that the Distributors do not admit liability or wrongdoing and do not waive any defenses.

Before the effective date of the Settlement, the Company entered into separate settlement agreements with the states of New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Florida. These states intended to participate in the Settlement when it was finalized, and these agreements provided that each state and its participating subdivisions would receive a settlement consistent with their allocation under the comprehensive Settlement framework, as well as, in some cases, certain attorneys’ fees and costs. Now that the Settlement has become effective, these separate settlement agreements have become part of that broader agreement.

With respect to the claims of the Alabama attorney general, the Company has negotiated an agreement in principle under which the Company will pay $141 million in ten equal annual installments and an additional approximately $33 million in attorney fees and costs to resolve the opioid-related claims of the state of Alabama and its subdivisions. On May 3, 2022, the Distributors announced an agreement with the attorney general of Washington to settle the claims of the state of Washington and its subdivisions. Under that agreement, Washington and its subdivisions would be paid up to $518 million, of which the Company’s portion would be 38.1% (or approximately $197 million), consistent with Washington’s allocation under the comprehensive framework, as well as certain additional attorneys’ fees and costs. The claims of the Oklahoma attorney general are pending in the District Court of Bryan County, Oklahoma (Case No. CJ-2020-84, 85, and 86), and trial is scheduled to begin in January 2023. The Company’s loss contingency accruals for these three states and their subdivisions reflect the amounts of these agreements in principle or, where there is no agreement in principle, amounts equivalent to what that state and its subdivisions would have been allocated under the framework of the Settlement.

The Company previously settled with the state of West Virginia, and West Virginia and its subdivisions were not eligible to participate in the comprehensive Settlement. Claims of various West Virginia subdivisions remain pending in both state and federal courts. Trial in the case of Cabell County and City of Huntington occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and concluded on July 28, 2021. The outcome of that trial is pending. The claims of certain other West Virginia subdivisions are pending in the federal Multi-district Litigation and before the state Mass Litigation Panel. On September 30, 2021, the Mass Litigation Panel issued an order scheduling a liability-only trial on the public nuisance claims of certain political subdivisions against the Distributors for July 5, 2022. The Company’s loss contingency accruals for the West Virginia subdivisions are reflected in the estimated liability for the opioid-related claims as of March 31, 2022.

With respect to the claims of Native American tribes, on September 28, 2021, the Company announced that the Distributors reached an agreement with the Cherokee Nation to pay approximately $75 million over 6.5 years to resolve opioid-related claims, of which the Company’s portion would be 38.1% (or, approximately $29 million). The Company has also negotiated a broad resolution of opioid-related claims brought by Native American tribes. Under the proposed agreement, which has been endorsed by the leadership committee of counsel representing the tribes, the Distributors would pay the Native American tribes other than the Cherokee Nation approximately $440 million over 6 years, of which the Company’s portion would be 38.1% (or, approximately $167 million). This broad resolution is contingent on the participation of a substantial majority of the Native American tribes that have brought opioid-related claims against the Distributors. Under these agreements, a minimum of 85% of the settlement payments must be used by the Native American tribes to remediate the opioid epidemic. The Company’s loss-contingency accruals for the Native American tribes reflect these amounts and are reflected in the estimated liability for the opioid-related claims as of March 31, 2022.

Although the Settlement terminated the substantial majority of opioid-related suits pending against the Company, a small number of subdivisions in participating states have opted not to participate in the comprehensive settlement, and other suits brought by subdivisions in non-participating states remain pending. The Company continues to prepare for trial in these pending matters and believes that it has valid defenses to the claims pending against it, and it intends to vigorously defend against all such claims if acceptable settlement terms are not achieved. The Company’s loss contingency accruals for these subdivisions are reflected in the estimated liability for the opioid-related claims consistent with what would be allocated under the framework of the settlement.

Consistent with the terms of the Settlement, the Company placed approximately $354 million into escrow on September 30, 2021. During the second half of 2022, the Company placed an additional net $41 million into escrow to reflect the participation of additional states, and as part of a separate agreement in principle with the Alabama attorney general. Those escrow amounts were presented as restricted cash within “Prepaid expenses and other” in our Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2022. These amounts excluded the proportionate allocation under the Settlement for each non-participating state. The Settlement created a binding obligation to release the funds from escrow upon entry of consent judgments and establishment of a settlement administrator.

Although the vast majority of opioid claims have been brought by governmental entities in the U.S., the Company is also a defendant in cases brought in the U.S. by private plaintiffs, such as hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals, as well as four cases brought in Canada (three by governmental or tribal entities and one by an individual). These claims, and those of private entities generally, are not included in the Settlement or in the charges recorded by the Company, described above. The Company believes it has valid legal defenses in these matters and intends to mount a vigorous defense. Trial is scheduled for July 18, 2022 in one such case brought by a group of individual plaintiffs in Glynn County, Georgia Superior Court. These plaintiffs seek to recover for damages allegedly arising from their family members’ abuse of prescription opioids. Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc. et al., CE19-00472. The Company has not concluded a loss is probable in any of these matters; nor is any possible loss or range of loss reasonably estimable.

On August 8, 2018, the Company was served with a qui tam complaint pending in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging that the Company violated the federal False Claims Act and various state false claims acts due to the alleged failure of the Company and other defendants to report providers who were engaged in diversion of controlled substances. United States ex rel. Manchester v. Purdue Pharma, L.P., et al., Case No. 1-16-cv-10947. On August 22, 2018, the United States filed a motion to dismiss. The relator died, and on February 25, 2019 the court entered an order staying the matter until a proper party can be substituted, and providing that if no party is substituted within 90 days of February 25, 2019, the case would be dismissed. In April 2019, the widow of the relator filed a motion to substitute their daughter as the relator; the United States and defendants opposed this substitution request. The motion remains pending and the case remains stayed.

In December 2019, the Company was served with two qui tam complaints filed by the same two relators alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act, the California False Claims Act, and the California Unfair Business Practices statute based on alleged predicate violations of the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations, United States ex rel. Kelley, 19-cv-2233, and State of California ex rel. Kelley, CGC-19-576931. The complaints seek relief including treble damages, civil penalties, attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts. On February 16, 2021, the court in the federal action dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, and the relators appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal on March 10, 2022. On June 28, 2021, the court in the state action dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the relators appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

Two cases pending in the Northern District of California were filed against McKesson by its liability umbrella insurers about policies they issued to the Company for the period 1999-2017, AIU Insurance Company and National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pa. (together "AIG") and ACE Property and Casualty Insurance Company ("ACE"). AIU Insurance Company et al. v. McKesson Corporation, No. 3:20-cv-07469 (N.D. Cal.) was initiated by AIG in the Northern District of California on October 23, 2020. Ace Property and Casualty Insurance Company v. McKesson Corporation et al., No. 3:20-cv-09356 (N.D. Cal.) was brought by ACE in California state court on November 2, 2020, and was removed by McKesson to federal court, transferred to the Northern District of California, and designated as related to the AIU action. AIG and ACE are seeking declarations that they have no duty to defend or indemnify McKesson in the thousands of lawsuits pending in federal and state courts related to opioids. In both actions, McKesson has asserted claims under the AIG and ACE policies seeking declarations and damages for past and future defense and indemnity costs. On April 5, 2022, the court issued an order granting partial summary judgment to the insurers that the Company’s defense costs in certain opioid-related litigation were not covered by two of the insurance policies.

On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by True Health Chiropractic Inc., alleging that McKesson sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA, True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages from $500 to $1,500 per violation plus injunctive relief. True Health Chiropractic later amended its complaint, adding McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates as an additional named plaintiff and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a defendant. Both plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the TCPA by sending faxes that did not contain notices regarding how to opt out of receiving the faxes. On August 13, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. After class notice and the opt-out period, 9,490 fax numbers remain in the class, representing 48,769 faxes received. On October 8, 2021, the court de-certified the class citing the plaintiffs lacked class-wide proof identifying the manner of receipt, thus leaving two named Plaintiffs remaining in the case. On April 27, 2022, the Court found that the named Plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to show Defendants willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA and therefore were not entitled to treble damages. The Court found McKesson liable for statutory damages in the amount of $6,500.

On April 16, 2013, the Company’s subsidiary, U.S. Oncology, Inc. (“USON”), was served with a third amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by two relators, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 21 states and the District of Columbia, against USON and five other defendants, alleging that USON solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Piacentile v. Amgen Inc., et al., CV 04-3983 (SJ). Previously, the United States declined to intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On September 30, 2013, the court granted the United States’ motion to dismiss the claims pled against Amgen. On September 17, 2018, the court granted USON’s motion to dismiss the claims pled against it, with leave to amend. On November 16, 2018, the relators filed a fourth amended complaint; that complaint was dismissed with prejudice on December 1, 2021. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on January 4, 2022.

On June 17, 2014, U.S. Oncology Specialty, LP (“USOS”) was served with a fifth amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator alleging that USOS, among others, solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Hanks v. Amgen, Inc., et al., CV-08-03096 (SJ). Previously, the U.S. declined to intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On September 17, 2018, the court granted USOS’s motion to dismiss. Following the relator’s appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the suit to the district court, directing it to consider the question of whether the suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The district court granted the relator leave to amend the complaint for a seventh time. The relator filed the seventh amended complaint on November 30, 2020.

On April 3, 2018, a second amended qui tam complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator, purportedly on behalf of the United States, 30 states, the District of Columbia, and two cities against McKesson Corporation, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Corporation, McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC, McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Joint Venture, L.P., Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation, Oncology Therapeutics Network Joint Venture, L.P., US Oncology, Inc. and US Oncology Specialty, L.P., alleging that from 2001 through 2010 the defendants repackaged and sold single-dose syringes of oncology medications in a manner that violated the federal False Claims Act and various state and local false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare Inc. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., 12-CV-06440 (NG). The United States and the named states have declined to intervene in the case. On October 15, 2018, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint as to all named defendants. On February 4, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part, leaving the Company and Oncology Therapeutics Network Corporation as the only remaining defendants in the case. On December 9, 2019, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York ordered the unsealing of another complaint filed by the same relator, alleging the same misconduct and seeking the same relief with respect to US Oncology, Inc., purportedly on behalf of the same government entities, United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. US Oncology, Inc., 19-cv-05125. The United States and the named states declined to intervene in the case.

The Company is a defendant in an amended complaint filed on June 15, 2018 in a case pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois alleging that the Company’s subsidiary, McKesson Medical-Surgical Inc., among others, violated the Sherman Act by restraining trade in the sale of safety and conventional syringes and safety IV catheters. Marion Diagnostic Center, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson, et al., No. 18:1059. The action is filed on behalf of a purported class of purchasers, and seeks treble damages and further relief, all in unspecified amounts. On July 20, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On November 30, 2018, the district court granted the motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. On December 27, 2018, plaintiffs appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On March 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated the district court’s order, and ruled that dismissal was appropriate on alternative grounds. The case was remanded to the district court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 21, 2020. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which the district court granted on March 15, 2021. Plaintiffs appealed the order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s dismissal on March 18, 2022.

On December 12, 2018, the Company received a purported class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that McKesson and two of its former officers, CEO John Hammergren and CFO James Beer, violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by reporting profits and revenues from 2013 until early 2017 that were false and misleading, due to an alleged undisclosed conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs. Evanston Police Pension Fund v. McKesson Corporation, No. 3:18-06525. The complaint seeks relief including damages, attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts. On February 8, 2019, the court appointed the Pension Trust Fund for Operating Engineers as the lead plaintiff. On April 10, 2019, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that added insider trading allegations against defendant Hammergren. On April 8, 2021, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

In July 2015, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company (“A&P”), a former customer of the Company, filed for reorganization in bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. In re The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-23007. A suit filed in 2017 against the Company in this bankruptcy case seeks to recover alleged preferential transfers. The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors on behalf of the bankruptcy estate of The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation d/b/a McKesson Drug Co., Adv. Proc. No. 17-08264.

In October 2019, the Company’s subsidiary NDCHealth Corporation dba RelayHealth (“RelayHealth”) was served with three purported class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that RelayHealth violated the Sherman Act by entering into an agreement with co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not to compete in the electronic prescription routing market, and by conspiring with Surescripts, LLC to monopolize that market, Powell Prescription Center, et al. v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v. Surescripts LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-07035. In November 2019, three similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. v. SureScripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-7445; Whitman v. SureScripts, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-7448; BBK Global Corp. v. SureScripts, LLC et al., 1:19-cv-7640. In December 2019, the six actions were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints seek relief including treble damages, attorney fees, and costs. Plaintiffs and RelayHealth reached an agreement in June 2020 to resolve the class action lawsuits and RelayHealth paid into escrow an amount not material in the context of the Company’s overall financial results. The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and RelayHealth expressly denies wrongdoing. The Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for final approval of the settlement on February 24, 2022.

In July 2020, the Company was served with a first amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a relator on behalf of the U.S., 27 states and the District of Columbia against McKesson Corporation, McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC, and McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Corporation, alleging that defendants violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, federal False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes by providing certain business analytical tools to oncology practice customers, United States ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00903-RA. The U.S. and the named states have declined to intervene in the case. The complaint seeks relief including damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorney fees, and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts. On May 5, 2022, the district court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted the plaintiff leave to amend the complaint.

From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies. The Company generally responds to such subpoenas and requests in a cooperative, thorough, and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such subpoenas and requests can lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of civil or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and other members of the health care industry, as well as to settlements of claims against the Company. The Company responds to these requests in the ordinary course of business. The following are examples of the type of subpoenas or requests the Company receives from time to time.

Legislative, regulatory, or industry measures to address the misuse of prescription opioid medications could affect the Company’s business in ways that it may not be able to predict. For example, in April 2018, the State of New York adopted the Opioid Stewardship Act (the “OSA”) which required the creation of an aggregate $100 million annual surcharge on all manufacturers and distributors licensed to sell or distribute opioids in New York. The initial surcharge payment would have been due on January 1, 2019 for opioids sold or distributed during calendar year 2017. On July 6, 2018, the Healthcare Distribution Alliance filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law and seeking an injunction against its enforcement. On December 19, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found the law unconstitutional and issued an injunction preventing the State of New York from enforcing the law. The State appealed that decision. On September 14, 2020, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on procedural grounds. The Company has accrued a $50 million pre-tax charge ($37 million after-tax) as its estimated share of the OSA surcharge for calendar years 2017 and 2018. This OSA provision was recognized in “Selling, distribution, general, and administrative expenses” in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended March 31, 2021 and in “Other accrued liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2021. The State of New York adopted an excise tax on sales of opioids in the State, which became effective July 1, 2019. The law adopting the excise tax made clear that the OSA does not apply to sales or distributions occurring after December 31, 2018. The Healthcare Distribution Alliance filed a petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; that petition was denied on December 18, 2020. On February 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a motion by the Healthcare Distribution Alliance to stay its mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. That petition was denied on October 4, 2021. In December 2021, McKesson paid $26 million for the assessment for calendar year 2017 while reserving all rights to challenge the constitutionality of the assessment.

Primarily as a result of the operation of the Company’s former chemical businesses, which were fully divested by 1987, the Company is involved in various matters pursuant to environmental laws and regulations. The Company has received claims and demands from governmental agencies relating to investigative and remedial actions purportedly required to address environmental conditions alleged to exist at five sites where it, or entities acquired by it, formerly conducted operations and the Company, by administrative order or otherwise, has agreed to take certain actions at those sites, including soil and groundwater remediation.

The Company has been designated as a Potentially Responsible Party (“PRP”) under the Superfund law for environmental assessment and cleanup costs as the result of its alleged disposal of hazardous substances at 14 sites. With respect to these sites, numerous other PRPs have similarly been designated and while the current state of the law potentially imposes joint and several liabilities upon PRPs, as a practical matter, costs of these sites are typically shared with other PRPs. At one of these sites, the United States Environmental Protection Agency has selected a preferred remedy with an estimated cost of approximately $1.4 billion. It is not certain at this point in time what proportion of this estimated liability will be borne by the Company. Accordingly, the Company’s estimated probable loss at those 14 sites is approximately $29 million, which has been accrued for in the Consolidated Balance Sheets. However, it is possible that the ultimate costs of these matters may exceed or be less than the reserves.

The Company operates in various countries outside the U.S. which collect value added taxes (“VAT”). The determination of the manner in which a VAT applies to the Company’s foreign operations is subject to varying interpretations arising from the complex nature of the tax laws. The Company has received assessments for VAT which are in various stages of appeal. The Company disagrees with these assessments and believes that it has a strong legal argument to defend its tax positions. Certain VAT assessments relate to years covered by an indemnification agreement. Due to the complex nature of the tax laws, it is not possible to estimate the outcome of these matters. However, based on currently available information, the Company believes the ultimate outcome of these matters will not have a material adverse effect on its financial position, cash flows or results of operations.

Numerous lawsuits have been filed against certain brand pharmaceutical manufacturers alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. These lawsuits are typically brought as class actions. The Company has not been named a plaintiff in any of these class action lawsuits, but has been a member of the class of those who purchased directly from the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Some of these class action lawsuits have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds, including $46 million, $181 million, and $22 million in 2022, 2021, and 2020, respectively, which were included in “Cost of sales” in the Consolidated Statements of Operations.

The Company is involved in various other litigation, governmental proceedings, and claims, not described above, that arise in the normal course of business. While it is not possible to determine the ultimate outcome or the duration of such litigation, governmental proceedings, or claims, the Company believes, based on current knowledge and the advice of counsel, that such litigation, proceedings, and claims will not have a material impact on the Company’s financial position or results of operations.