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 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 Statements of Operations consist of estimated loss contingencies related to opioid-related litigation matters, as well as any applicable income items or credit adjustments due to subsequent changes in estimates.

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 pharmacies. 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 have sought 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. Because of the many uncertainties associated with opioid-related litigation matters, the Company is not able to conclude that a liability is probable or provide a reasonable estimate for the range of ultimate possible loss for opioid-related litigation matters other than those for which an accrual is described below.

The Company and two other national pharmaceutical distributors (collectively “Distributors”) entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement”) and consent judgment with 48 states and their participating subdivisions, as well as the District of Columbia and all eligible territories (the “Settling Governmental Entities”). Approximately 2,300 cases have been dismissed. The Distributors did not admit liability or wrongdoing and do not waive any defenses pursuant to the Settlement. Under the Settlement, the Company has paid the Settling Governmental Entities approximately $1.5 billion as of March 31, 2024, and additionally will pay the Settling Governmental Entities up to approximately $6.3 billion through 2038. A minimum of 85% of the Settlement payments must be used by state and local governmental entities to remediate the opioid epidemic, while the remainder relates to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs and will be paid out through 2030. Pursuant to the Settlement, the Distributors are in the process of establishing 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.

Alabama and West Virginia did not participate in the Settlement. Under a separate settlement agreement with Alabama and its subdivisions, the Company has paid approximately $61 million as of March 31, 2024, and additionally will pay approximately $113 million through 2031. The Company previously settled with the state of West Virginia in 2018, so West Virginia and its subdivisions were not eligible to participate in the Settlement. Under a separate settlement agreement, the Company has paid certain West Virginia subdivisions approximately $53 million as of March 31, 2024, and additionally will pay approximately $99 million through 2033. That agreement does not include school districts or the claims of Cabell County and the City of Huntington. After a trial, the claims of Cabell County and the City of Huntington, were decided in the Company’s favor on July 4, 2022. Those subdivisions appealed that decision.

Some other state and local governmental subdivisions did not participate in the Settlement, including certain municipal governments, government hospitals, school districts, and government-affiliated third-party payors. The Company contends that those subdivisions’ claims are foreclosed by the Settlement or other dispositive defenses, but the subdivisions contend that their claims are not foreclosed. The City of Baltimore, Maryland, is one such subdivision, and a trial of its claims is scheduled to begin September 26, 2024. The district attorneys of the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania did not participate in the settlement and sought to bring separate claims against the Company, notwithstanding the settlement with the state of Pennsylvania and its attorney general. On January 26, 2024, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania ruled that the Pennsylvania attorney general had settled and fully released the claims brought by those district attorneys under Pennsylvania’s Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law. The district attorneys have appealed that decision to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. An accrual for the remaining governmental subdivision claims is reflected in the total estimated liability for opioid-related claims in a manner consistent with how Settlement amounts were allocated to Settling Governmental Entities.

The Company also entered into settlement agreements for opioid-related claims of federally recognized Native American tribes. Under those agreements, the Company has paid the settling Native American tribes approximately $84 million as of March 31, 2024, and additionally will pay approximately $112 million through 2027. A minimum of 85% of the total settlement payments must be used by the settling Native American tribes to remediate the opioid epidemic.

One such case was brought by a group of individual plaintiffs in Glynn County, Georgia Superior Court seeking to recover for damages allegedly arising from their family members’ abuse of prescription opioids. Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc., CE19-00472. On March 1, 2023, the jury in that case returned a verdict in favor of the defendants, including the Company. Plaintiffs have appealed.

The Company and two other national distributors are engaged in ongoing settlement discussions with representatives of nationwide groups of acute care hospitals and certain third-party payors. For the year ended March 31, 2024, the Company recorded a charge of $149 million within “Claims and litigation charges, net” in the Consolidated Statement of Operations to reflect its portion of a proposed settlement with a nationwide class of acute care hospitals, and the corresponding liability was included within “Other accrued liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The mediator proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, agreement on final settlement terms, Board approval, court approval, and sufficient participation by hospitals. The trial for one of those acute care hospital cases, Fort Payne Hospital Corporation et al. v. McKesson Corp., CV-2021-900016, has been stayed as to the Company. With respect to the third party payors, the Company has been engaged in settlement discussions with representatives of a nationwide group of certain third-party payors. Those negotiations include a proposal by the mediator for the Company to pay up to $114 million to resolve the claims of a nationwide class of certain third-party payors. Because of the many uncertainties, including the need to negotiate non-financial settlement terms, the Company has not determined a liability is probable. The claims of remaining U.S. non-governmental plaintiffs are not included in the charge recorded by the Company.

The Company believes it has valid legal defenses in all opioid-related matters, including claims not covered by settlement agreements, and it intends to mount a vigorous defense in such matters. Other than the settlement agreements and the U.S. governmental subdivision claims described above, the Company has not concluded a loss is probable in any of the matters; nor is any possible loss or range of loss reasonably estimable. An adverse judgment or negotiated resolution in any of these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or liquidity, or results of operations.

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.

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 United States 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 or about April 25, 2018, a second amended qui tam complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York was served on 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. by Omni Healthcare, Inc. as relator, purportedly on behalf of the United States and 33 cities and states 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 of America ex rel. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. McKesson Corp., et al., 1:12-cv-06440 (E.D.N.Y.). The United States and the other governmental plaintiffs declined to intervene in the suit. In February 2019, the court dismissed all of the defendants except McKesson Corporation and Oncology Therapeutics Network Corp. On or about March 2, 2020, another qui tam complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York was served on US Oncology, Inc. by the same relator purportedly on behalf of the United States and 33 cities and states alleging the same misconduct and seeking the same relief. United States ex rel. Omni Healthcare, Inc. v. US Oncology, Inc., 1:19-cv-05125. The United States and the named states declined to intervene in the case. Relator filed an amended complaint on August 19, 2022. On September 8, 2023, US Oncology, Inc.’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint was granted. Relator has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

On December 30, 2019, a group of independent pharmacies and a hospital filed a purported class action complaint alleging that the Company and other distributors violated the Sherman Act by colluding with manufacturers to restrain trade in the sale of generic drugs. Reliable Pharmacy, et al. v. Actavis Holdco US, et al., No. 2:19-cv-6044; MDL No. 16-MD-2724. The complaint seeks relief including treble damages, disgorgement, attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts. On May 25, 2022, the district court granted distributor defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on July 1, 2022.

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. Trial is scheduled to begin July 12, 2024.

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 United States, 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 United States 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. The relator filed the second amended complaint on June 7, 2022, which was dismissed by the district court on March 28, 2023. On March 12, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of claims under the Anti-Kickback Statute and federal False Claims Act, vacated the dismissal of the remaining claims, and remanded for further proceedings.

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.

In April 2018, the State of New York Opioid Stewardship Act (“OSA”) imposed an aggregate $100 million annual surcharge for 2017 and 2018 on all manufacturers and distributors licensed to sell or distribute opioids in New York. In December 2021, the Company paid $26 million for the 2017 OSA surcharge assessment. On May 18, 2022, the Company filed a lawsuit in New York state court challenging the constitutionality of the OSA. In November 2022, the Company received a 2018 OSA surcharge assessment of approximately $42 million. On December 14, 2022, the state court ruled that the OSA is constitutional. The Company has paid $42 million for the 2018 OSA surcharge assessment. The Company’s OSA challenge is pending before the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division. The Company reserves its rights and intends to vigorously challenge the OSA and the OSA surcharge assessments.

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 four 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.

Based on a determination by the Company’s environmental staff, in consultation with outside environmental specialists and counsel, the current estimate of the Company’s probable loss associated with the remediation costs for these four sites is $26 million, net of amounts anticipated from third parties. The $26 million is expected to be paid out between April 2024 and March 2054. The Company has accrued $26 million for the estimated probable loss for these environmental matters in its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2024.

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. For one such site, the Company was one of multiple recipients of a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection directive and a separate U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) directive concerning natural resources damages to the Passaic River associated with the Company’s Newark, New Jersey facility. In March 2016, the EPA selected a preferred remedy for this Lower Passaic River site with an estimated cost of approximately $1.4 billion. In December 2022, the Company entered into a Consent Decree with the EPA that is currently pending approval by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey and would require the Company to pay $3 million, for which the Company maintained an escrow deposit as of March 31, 2024. Accordingly, the Company’s estimated probable loss at the remaining 13 sites is approximately $29 million, which has been accrued for in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2024.

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 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 sometimes brought as class actions on behalf of those who purchased directly from pharmaceutical manufacturers. Some of these lawsuits have settled in the past with the Company receiving proceeds, including $244 million, $129 million, and $46 million in fiscal 2024, fiscal 2023, and fiscal 2022, 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.