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 and in Financial Note 17 to the Company’s 2024 , Annual Report, Financial Note 9 to the Company’s 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, and Financial Note 10 to the Company’s 10-Q filing for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2024, which disclosure is incorporated in this footnote by this reference. 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 Condensed 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, such as opioids. 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. These plaintiffs 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 $2.0 billion as of December 31, 2024, and additionally will pay the Settling Governmental Entities up to approximately $5.9 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 $75 million as of December 31, 2024, and additionally will pay approximately $99 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 December 31, 2024. The Company also paid $15 million in January 2025 and additionally will pay approximately $84 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. A trial of its claims against the Company and another national pharmaceutical distributor began on September 16, 2024 in the Circuit Court of Maryland for Baltimore City, Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Purdue Pharma LP, No. 24-C-18-000515. Baltimore claims that the defendants’ distribution of controlled substances to certain pharmacies in the City of Baltimore and Baltimore County caused a public nuisance. On November 12, 2024, the jury returned a verdict finding the Company liable and assessing approximately $192 million in compensatory damages. A second phase of the trial, in which the city seeks monetary abatement relief, began on December 11, 2024, and the court is currently considering whether to award additional relief. The judgment is not final, and the Company has filed a motion seeking to set aside the verdict. The Company believes it has valid bases to challenge the verdict and is prepared to appeal, if necessary. Because of the many bases to challenge the verdict, both in the trial court and on appeal, the Company has not adjusted its litigation reserve as a result of the jury verdict.

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 $112 million as of December 31, 2024, and additionally will pay approximately $84 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.

The Company is also a defendant in hundreds of opioid-related cases brought in the U.S. by private plaintiffs, such as hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals. These claims, and those of private entities generally, are not included in the settlement agreements described above. The Company and two other national distributors have reached proposed settlements with representatives of nationwide groups of acute care hospitals and certain third-party payors. The claims of remaining U.S. non-governmental plaintiffs are not included in the charges recorded by the Company (described below).

With respect to the acute care hospitals, 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, of which $75 million was recorded within Corporate expenses, net, and $74 million was recorded within U.S. Pharmaceutical. The corresponding liability was included within “Other accrued liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. The proposed settlement is subject to, among other things, court approval and sufficient participation by hospitals. On October 30, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement, pursuant to which the Company placed approximately $149 million into escrow on November 27, 2024. The escrow payment was presented as restricted cash within “Prepaid expenses and other” in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2024. 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, for the nine months ended December 31, 2024, the Company recorded a charge of $114 million within “Claims and litigation charges, net” in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations to reflect the Company’s portion of the settlement with representatives of a nationwide group of certain third-party payors, of which $57 million was recorded within Corporate expenses, net and U.S. Pharmaceutical, respectively. The corresponding liability was included within “Other accrued liabilities” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet. On January 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio overruled objections to the settlement and granted final approval to the settlement. The effective date of the settlement will be February 15, 2025 if no party appeals or files a motion for reconsideration.

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 accruals 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 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. The dismissal was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on November 12, 2024.

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 February 3, 2025, the district court granted distributor defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

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. On June 7, 2024, the relator filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on October 7, 2024. The district court dismissed the remaining state law claims without prejudice to the relator refiling them in state court.

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 healthcare industry, as well as to settlements of claims against the Company. The Company responds to these requests in the ordinary course of business.

During the third fiscal quarter of 2025, the Company received proceeds of $31 million related to its share of two antitrust settlements. The lawsuits were filed against a brand manufacturer alleging that the manufacturer, by itself or in concert with others, took improper actions to delay or prevent generic drugs from entering the market. The Company was not a named party to either litigation but was a member of the representative classes of those who purchased directly from the pharmaceutical manufacturer. The Company recognized a gain in that amount within "Cost of sales" in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations in the third quarter of fiscal 2025 related to the settlements.