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 2025, Annual Report, 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 June 30, 2025, 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 June 30, 2025, 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 $68 million as of June 30, 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.

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. On June 12, 2025, the court granted remittitur of the verdict, reducing compensatory damages against the Company to $37 million. Plaintiff must decide whether to accept the reduced damages or seek a new trial on the amount of damages. The court is also considering Plaintiff’s request for additional “abatement” relief and it has indicated that it will issue a decision before the Plaintiff must decide whether to seek a new trial. If the Plaintiff chooses a new trial, then the court may revisit the proper amount of abatement relief. The Company believes it has valid bases to challenge the verdict and any abatement award, and is prepared to appeal. Because of the many bases to challenge the verdict on appeal, the Company has not adjusted its litigation reserve as a result of the court’s entry of judgment.

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 June 30, 2025, 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 has also been 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 class-action 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 settlement with a nationwide class of acute care hospitals. The corresponding liability was included within “Other accrued liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet. 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. On March 4, 2025, the Court granted final approval to the settlement, which became effective on April 4, 2025. The escrow payment was presented as restricted cash within “Prepaid expenses and other” in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2025.

With respect to the third-party payors, for the year ended March 31, 2025, the Company recorded a charge of $114 million within “Claims and litigation charges, net” in the 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 Consolidated Balance Sheet. On January 15, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio overruled objections and approved the settlement, pursuant to which the Company placed approximately $114 million into escrow on February 12, 2025. Objections to the settlement have been resolved, and the settlement is currently pending final approval by the district court. The escrow payment was presented as restricted cash within “Prepaid expenses and other” in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of June 30, 2025.

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 March 27, 2025, the relator filed a petition seeking review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied.

On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, captioned True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG), later amended to include McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates, Inc. as a named plaintiff. The plaintiffs alleged that McKesson and a subsidiary sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005. The district court initially certified a class, but later de-certified it, leaving only the two named plaintiffs. The court awarded $6,500 in statutory damages and denied treble damages. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. On June 20, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for reconsideration of class certification, but did not disturb the ruling denying treble damages, which is now final. The Company believes that any remaining potential liability is not material.

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.

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 trial 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 Appellate Division subsequently ruled that the 2017 assessment was unconstitutional, but that the 2018

assessment was proper. The Company has paid $42 million for the 2018 OSA surcharge assessment. On March 31, 2025, the State of New York agreed to pay the Company $28 million to settle the matter. On May 9, 2025, the State of New York’s Fiscal Year 2026 budget was signed into law, which included appropriations for the payment. The recovery was recorded within “Selling, distribution, general, and administrative expenses” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended June 30, 2025 and the corresponding receivable was included within “Receivables, net” in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet.

During the first fiscal quarter of 2026, the Company received proceeds of $8 million related to its share of 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 first quarter of fiscal 2026 related to the settlements.