Legal Matters and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Abstract]
Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]	Note 7. Legal Matters and Contingencies In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, and government investigations, including antitrust, commercial, environmental, product liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment discrimination, and other matters. Significant damages or penalties may be sought from the Company in some matters, and some matters may require years for the Company to resolve. The Company establishes reserves based on its periodic assessment of estimates of probable losses. There can be no assurance that an adverse resolution of one or more matters during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period or on the Company’s financial condition. Qui Tam Matters The qui tam provisions of the federal civil False Claims Act and various state and local civil False Claims Acts permit a private person, known as a “relator” or whistleblower, to file civil actions under these statutes on behalf of the federal, state and local governments. Such cases may involve allegations around the marketing, sale and/or purchase of pharmaceutical products. Qui tam complaints are initially filed by the relator under seal (or on a confidential basis) and the filing of the complaint imposes obligations on government authorities to investigate the allegations in the complaint and to determine whether or not to intervene in the action. Qui tam complaints remain sealed until the court in which the case was filed orders otherwise. The Company has learned that there are filings in one or more federal district courts, including a qui tam complaint filed by one of its former employees, that are under seal and may involve allegations against the Company (and/or subsidiaries or businesses of the Company, including its group purchasing organization for oncologists and its oncology distribution business) relating to its distribution of certain pharmaceutical products to providers. The Company and AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group (“ABSG”) have also received subpoenas from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (“USAO”) requesting production of documents and information relating to ABSG’s oncology distribution center and former pharmacy in Dothan, Alabama, its group purchasing organization for oncologists, and intercompany transfers of certain oncology products, which the Company believes could be related to one or more of the qui tam actions that remain under seal. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoenas. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any pending action in which any AmerisourceBergen entity is or may become a defendant. Subpoenas and Investigations In fiscal 2012, the Company’s subsidiary, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation (“ABDC”), received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office in New Jersey (the “USAO”) in connection with a grand jury proceeding requesting documents concerning ABDC’s program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. ABDC also received a subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) in connection with the matter. In addition to requesting information on ABDC’s diversion control program generally, the subpoenas also request additional information related to electronically stored information and documents concerning specific customers’ purchases of controlled substances. Since fiscal 2012, ABDC has received a number of subpoenas from both the USAO and the DEA requesting additional information, including for grand jury testimony and related documents concerning DEA audits. In fiscal 2013 and in 2014, the Company or ABDC has also received similar subpoenas from the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Kansas and the United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Ohio in connection with grand jury proceedings requesting documents concerning ABDC’s program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific and industrial purposes. As in the New Jersey matter described above, in addition to requesting information on ABDC’s diversion control program generally, the subpoenas also request documents concerning specific customers’ purchases of controlled substances. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoenas and requests for information. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters. State Proceedings On June 26, 2012, the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia (“West Virginia”) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, against a number of pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the Company’s subsidiary, ABDC, alleging, among other things, that the distributors failed to provide effective controls and procedures to guard against diversion of controlled substances for illegitimate purposes in West Virginia. The complaint also alleges that the distributors acted negligently by distributing controlled substances to pharmacies that serve individuals who abuse prescription pain medication and were unjustly enriched by such conduct, violated consumer credit and protection laws, created a public nuisance, and violated state antitrust laws in connection with the distribution of controlled substances. West Virginia is seeking injunctive relief to enjoin alleged violations of state regulations requiring suspicious order monitoring and reporting and to require defendants to fund a medical monitoring treatment program. The complaint also seeks a jury trial to determine any losses and damages sustained by West Virginia as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct. On January 2, 2014, West Virginia filed an Amended Complaint, which removed the claims for unjust enrichment, medical monitoring and antitrust violations and named two additional plaintiffs, the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (together with West Virginia, “Plaintiffs”). On January 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint under seal, which reasserted an unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiffs also filed an accompanying motion to modify the protective order so that the Second Amended Complaint may be unsealed and served on all defendants. On April 6, 2015, ABDC filed a renewed motion to dismiss and to strike the Second Amended Complaint. A hearing on this motion was held on June 1, 2015. Pursuant to the Court’s order at that hearing, ABDC filed a proposed order relating to its renewed motion to dismiss on July 7, 2015 and is awaiting the Court’s ruling. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter. On March 10, 2015, the County of Fulton, Georgia (“County”), through its County Attorney R. David Ware, filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Fulton County, Georgia, against a number of pharmaceutical wholesalers, including the Company’s subsidiary ABDC. The complaint alleges that ABDC and other defendants failed to maintain effective controls against the diversion of controlled substances, failed to maintain records, and failed to report suspicious orders in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act and the Georgia Pharmacy Practice Act. The complaint also alleges that the defendants acted negligently in the marketing, promotion, and distribution of controlled substances by failing to guard against misconduct by physicians, pharmacists, and other parties who diverted controlled substances for illegitimate users. The complaint further asserts that defendants were unjustly enriched by such conduct and created a public nuisance. The County seeks injunctive relief and a trial by jury to determine damages. The defendants filed a Notice of Removal on April 14, 2015 and filed a motion to dismiss on April 21, 2015. On May 15, 2015, the County filed a Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and the Court dismissed the case without prejudice on May 18, 2015.

Note 7. Legal Matters and Contingencies

In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, and government investigations, including antitrust, commercial, environmental, product liability, intellectual property, regulatory, employment discrimination, and other matters. Significant damages or penalties may be sought from the Company in some matters, and some matters may require years for the Company to resolve. The Company establishes reserves based on its periodic assessment of estimates of probable losses. There can be no assurance that an adverse resolution of one or more matters during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s results of operations for that period or on the Company’s financial condition.

Qui Tam Matters

The qui tam provisions of the federal civil False Claims Act and various state and local civil False Claims Acts permit a private person, known as a “relator” or whistleblower, to file civil actions under these statutes on behalf of the federal, state and local governments. Such cases may involve allegations around the marketing, sale and/or purchase of pharmaceutical products. Qui tam complaints are initially filed by the relator under seal (or on a confidential basis) and the filing of the complaint imposes obligations on government authorities to investigate the allegations in the complaint and to determine whether or not to intervene in the action. Qui tam complaints remain sealed until the court in which the case was filed orders otherwise.

The Company has learned that there are filings in one or more federal district courts, including a qui tam complaint filed by one of its former employees, that are under seal and may involve allegations against the Company (and/or subsidiaries or businesses of the Company, including its group purchasing organization for oncologists and its oncology distribution business) relating to its distribution of certain pharmaceutical products to providers. The Company and AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group (“ABSG”) have also received subpoenas from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York (“USAO”) requesting production of documents and information relating to ABSG’s oncology distribution center and former pharmacy in Dothan, Alabama, its group purchasing organization for oncologists, and intercompany transfers of certain oncology products, which the Company believes could be related to one or more of the qui tam actions that remain under seal. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoenas. The Company cannot predict the outcome of any pending action in which any AmerisourceBergen entity is or may become a defendant.

Subpoenas and Investigations

In fiscal 2012, the Company’s subsidiary, AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation (“ABDC”), received a subpoena from the United States Attorney’s Office in New Jersey (the “USAO”) in connection with a grand jury proceeding requesting documents concerning ABDC’s program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific, and industrial purposes. ABDC also received a subpoena from the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”) in connection with the matter. In addition to requesting information on ABDC’s diversion control program generally, the subpoenas also request additional information related to electronically stored information and documents concerning specific customers’ purchases of controlled substances. Since fiscal 2012, ABDC has received a number of subpoenas from both the USAO and the DEA requesting additional information, including for grand jury testimony and related documents concerning DEA audits. In fiscal 2013 and in 2014, the Company or ABDC has also received similar subpoenas from the United States Attorney’s Office in the District of Kansas and the United States Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Ohio in connection with grand jury proceedings requesting documents concerning ABDC’s program for controlling and monitoring diversion of controlled substances into channels other than for legitimate medical, scientific and industrial purposes. As in the New Jersey matter described above, in addition to requesting information on ABDC’s diversion control program generally, the subpoenas also request documents concerning specific customers’ purchases of controlled substances. The Company is in the process of responding to the subpoenas and requests for information. The Company cannot predict the outcome of these matters.

State Proceedings

On June 26, 2012, the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia (“West Virginia”) filed a complaint in the Circuit Court of Boone County, West Virginia, against a number of pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including the Company’s subsidiary, ABDC, alleging, among other things, that the distributors failed to provide effective controls and procedures to guard against diversion of controlled substances for illegitimate purposes in West Virginia. The complaint also alleges that the distributors acted negligently by distributing controlled substances to pharmacies that serve individuals who abuse prescription pain medication and were unjustly enriched by such conduct, violated consumer credit and protection laws, created a public nuisance, and violated state antitrust laws in connection with the distribution of controlled substances. West Virginia is seeking injunctive relief to enjoin alleged violations of state regulations requiring suspicious order monitoring and reporting and to require defendants to fund a medical monitoring treatment program. The complaint also seeks a jury trial to determine any losses and damages sustained by West Virginia as a result of the defendants’ alleged conduct. On January 2, 2014, West Virginia filed an Amended Complaint, which removed the claims for unjust enrichment, medical monitoring and antitrust violations and named two additional plaintiffs, the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety and the West Virginia Department of Health and Human Resources (together with West Virginia, “Plaintiffs”). On January 13, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint under seal, which reasserted an unjust enrichment claim. Plaintiffs also filed an accompanying motion to modify the protective order so that the Second Amended Complaint may be unsealed and served on all defendants. On April 6, 2015, ABDC filed a renewed motion to dismiss and to strike the Second Amended Complaint. A hearing on this motion was held on June 1, 2015. Pursuant to the Court’s order at that hearing, ABDC filed a proposed order relating to its renewed motion to dismiss on July 7, 2015 and is awaiting the Court’s ruling. The Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

On March 10, 2015, the County of Fulton, Georgia (“County”), through its County Attorney R. David Ware, filed a complaint in the Superior Court for Fulton County, Georgia, against a number of pharmaceutical wholesalers, including the Company’s subsidiary ABDC. The complaint alleges that ABDC and other defendants failed to maintain effective controls against the diversion of controlled substances, failed to maintain records, and failed to report suspicious orders in violation of the Georgia Controlled Substances Act and the Georgia Pharmacy Practice Act. The complaint also alleges that the defendants acted negligently in the marketing, promotion, and distribution of controlled substances by failing to guard against misconduct by physicians, pharmacists, and other parties who diverted controlled substances for illegitimate users. The complaint further asserts that defendants were unjustly enriched by such conduct and created a public nuisance. The County seeks injunctive relief and a trial by jury to determine damages. The defendants filed a Notice of Removal on April 14, 2015 and filed a motion to dismiss on April 21, 2015. On May 15, 2015, the County filed a Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice and the Court dismissed the case without prejudice on May 18, 2015.