XML 35 R22.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT v3.20.2
Legal Matters and Contingencies
 12 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Legal Matters and Contingencies Legal Matters and Contingencies
In the ordinary course of its business, the Company becomes involved in lawsuits, administrative proceedings, government subpoenas, government investigations, stockholder demands, and other disputes, including antitrust, commercial, 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 records a reserve for these matters when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated.

 For those matters for which the Company has not recognized a liability, the Company cannot predict the outcome of their impact on the Company as uncertainty remains with regard to whether such matters will proceed to trial, whether settlements will be reached, and the amount and terms of any such settlements. Outcomes may include settlements in significant amounts that are not currently estimable, limitations on the Company's conduct, the imposition of corporate integrity agreement obligations, consent decrees, and/or other civil and criminal penalties. From time to time, the Company is also involved in disputes with its customers, which the Company generally seeks to resolve through commercial negotiations. If negotiations are unsuccessful, the parties may litigate the dispute or otherwise attempt to settle the matter.

With respect to the specific legal proceedings and claims described below, unless otherwise noted, the amount or range of possible losses is not reasonably estimable. There can be no assurance that the settlement, resolution, or other outcome of one or more matters, including the matters set forth below, during any subsequent reporting period will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations or cash flows for that period or on the Company's financial condition.

Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations

A significant number of counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in a majority of U.S. states and Puerto Rico, as well as numerous states and tribes, have filed lawsuits in various federal, state and other courts against pharmaceutical wholesale distributors (including the Company and certain subsidiaries, such as AmerisourceBergen Drug Corporation ("ABDC") and H.D. Smith), pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail chains, medical practices, and physicians relating to the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. Other lawsuits regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications have been filed by: third-party payors and similar entities; hospitals; hospital groups; and individuals, including cases styled as putative class actions. The lawsuits, which have been and continue to be filed in federal, state, and other courts, generally allege violations of controlled substance laws and various other statutes as well as common law claims, including negligence, public nuisance, and unjust enrichment, and seek equitable relief and monetary damages. An initial group of cases was consolidated for Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") proceedings before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the "Court") in December 2017. Additional cases have been, and will likely continue to be, transferred to the MDL. Further, in June 2018, the Court granted a motion permitting the United States, through the DOJ, to participate in settlement discussions and as a friend of the Court by providing information to facilitate non-monetary remedies.

In April 2018, the Court issued an order creating a litigation track, which includes dispositive motion practice, discovery, and trials in certain bellwether jurisdictions. In December 2018, the Court issued an order selecting two additional cases for a second bellwether discovery and trial track. In November 2019 and January 2020, the Court filed Suggestions of
Remand with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that identified four cases filed against the Company, including the two additional bellwether cases, for potential transfer from the MDL back to federal courts in California, Oklahoma, and West Virginia for the completion of discovery, motion practice, and trial. All four cases have now been remanded to those federal district courts and discovery has commenced. The two consolidated cases in West Virginia that were scheduled to commence trial on October 19, 2020 were postponed to January 4, 2021 due to COVID-19. For the California case, the current trial date is October 25, 2021. No trial date has been established for the Oklahoma case, in which the plaintiff is the Cherokee Nation.

On October 21, 2019, the Company announced an agreement in principle with two Ohio counties, Cuyahoga and Summit, to settle all claims brought by the two counties against the Company in the first track of the MDL. Pursuant to the settlement, claims against the Company were dismissed with prejudice and the Company made a payment of $66.7 million in December 2019. The Company had previously recorded a charge of $66.7 million in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2019 within Employee Severance, Litigation and Other in its Statement of Operations and in Accrued Expenses and Other on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet.

On October 21, 2019, the Attorneys General for North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Texas announced certain proposed settlement terms intended to provide a potential framework for a global resolution of the state and local government entity lawsuits in the MDL and in state courts, including cases currently filed and that could be filed. The attorneys general's announcement outlined that the three largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributors would be expected to pay an aggregate amount of up to $18.0 billion over 18 years, of which the Company's portion would be 31%, in addition to the development and participation in a program for free or rebated distribution of opioid-abuse medications for a period of 10 years and the implementation of industry-wide changes to be specified to controlled substance anti-diversion programs. Since that time, the Company has engaged in discussions that include the four attorneys general, as well as other attorneys general, plaintiffs' lawyers representing local governments, and other parties with the objective of reaching potential terms for a global resolution.

The Company is currently in advanced discussions, which are ongoing, with the states and various plaintiffs’ representatives that would be necessary to reach a global settlement of the MDL and related state-court litigation brought by certain state and local governmental entities by the three largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributors of $21.0 billion to be paid over 18 years in which the Company’s payment would be $6.5 billion assuming all parties participate. A portion of this amount relating to plaintiff attorney fees would be payable over a shorter time period. The discussions also involve certain changes to the Company's anti-diversion programs. While a global settlement remains subject to contingencies that could impact whether the parties ultimately decide to move forward, the Company believes a global settlement is probable and its loss related thereto can be reasonably estimated as of September 30, 2020. The Company has recorded a charge of $6.6 billion in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 within Employee Severance, Litigation and Other in its Statement of Operations related to the global settlement as well as other opioid-related litigation. The Company currently estimates that $408.0 million will be paid prior to September 30, 2021, which is recorded in Accrued Expenses and Other on the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet. The remaining liability of $6.2 billion is recorded in Accrued Litigation Liability on the Company's Consolidated Balance Sheet. While the Company has accrued its estimated liability for this matter, it is unable to estimate the range of possible loss associated with these opioid litigation matters. Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. The Company will regularly review these opioid litigation matters to determine whether its accrual is adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from the $6.6 billion accrual. Until such time as a plaintiff participates in a global settlement or otherwise resolves its lawsuit, the Company will continue to litigate and prepare for trial in the cases pending in the MDL, those remanded from the MDL to federal district courts, as well as in state courts where lawsuits have been filed, and intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in all such cases. Since these matters are still developing, the Company is unable to predict the outcome, but the result of these lawsuits could include excessive monetary verdicts and/or injunctive relief that may affect the Company's operations. Further, any final settlement among parties may differ materially from the Company's advanced discussions related to global resolution of the MDL and related state-court litigation involving certain state and local governmental entities.

In June 2019, attorneys for some of the plaintiffs filed a motion proposing a procedure to certify a nationwide "negotiation class" of cities and counties for the purpose of negotiating and settling with defendants engaged in the nationwide manufacturing, sale, or distribution of opioids. The attorneys subsequently withdrew the motion and refiled an amended motion on July 9, 2019. The Court granted the motion on September 11, 2019 and certain defendants, including ABDC filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. On September 24, 2020, the Sixth Circuit reversed the Court's prior order. On October 8, 2020, certain of the plaintiffs filed a petition asking the Sixth Circuit to rehear the matter en banc, which has not yet been decided.

Notwithstanding the Company's accrual of $6.6 billion, a trial in New York state for cases brought by Nassau and Suffolk Counties and the New York Attorney General against a variety of defendants, including the Company, was scheduled to
begin on March 20, 2020. The trial is not part of the MDL and has been delayed due to the COVID-19 outbreak. The court has not yet set a new trial date but has expressed an intention to commence trial early in 2021, if possible. A trial in Ohio state court for a case brought by the Ohio Attorney General against ABDC and certain other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors was scheduled to begin trial on October 19, 2020 but has been postponed to March 8, 2021. Several other cases filed in various state courts have trial dates scheduled in 2021 and later, although all such dates are subject to change.

Aside from those parties that have already filed suit, other entities, including additional attorneys general’s offices, counties, and cities in multiple states, may continue to file additional lawsuits or enforcement proceedings. The Company is vigorously defending itself in the pending lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself against any threatened lawsuits or enforcement proceedings. 

The Company has also received subpoenas, civil investigative demands, and other requests for information, requesting the production of documents regarding the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications from government agencies in other jurisdictions, including certain states. The Company is engaged in discussions with representatives from these government agencies regarding the requests and has been producing responsive documents. The Company cannot predict how these matters would be affected by a global settlement.

Since July 2017, the Company has received subpoenas from several U.S. Attorney's Offices, including grand jury subpoenas from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey ("USAO-NJ") and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York ("USAO-EDNY"). Those subpoenas request the production of a broad range of documents pertaining to the Company's distribution of controlled substances through its various subsidiaries, including ABDC, and its diversion control programs. The Company has been engaged in discussions with the various U.S. Attorney’s Offices, including the Health Care and Government Fraud Unit of the Criminal Division of the USAO-NJ, and has been producing documents in response to the subpoenas.

Government Enforcement and Related Litigation Matters

On May 17, 2019, PharMEDium reached an agreement on the terms of the Consent Decree with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and the DOJ that was entered by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 22, 2019. As previously disclosed, in late January 2020 the Company decided to permanently exit the PharMEDium compounding business. As a result the Company ceased all commercial operations related to this business as well as all administrative operations other than those needed to complete the shutdown. While PharMEDium has ceased commercial operations, it remains subject to the terms of the Consent Decree and continues to work with the FDA and the DOJ to comply with applicable laws and regulations.

Subpoenas, Ongoing Investigations, and Other Contingencies

From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies relating to the Company's business or to the business of a customer, supplier, or other industry participant. The Company's responses often require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred. Most of these matters are resolved without incident; however, such subpoenas or 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 substantial settlements.

In January 2017, the Company's subsidiary U.S. Bioservices Corporation ("U.S. Bio") received a subpoena for information from the USAO-EDNY relating to its activities in connection with billing for products and making returns of potential overpayments to government payers. A filed qui tam complaint related to the investigation was unsealed in April 2019 and the relator filed an amended complaint under seal in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. In December 2019, the government filed a notice that it was declining to intervene. The court ordered that the relator's complaint against the Company, including subsidiaries AmerisourceBergen Specialty Group, LLC and U.S. Bio, be unsealed. The relator’s complaint alleged violations of the federal False Claims Act and the false claims acts of various states. The relator filed a second amended complaint, removing one state false claims act count. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint and all briefing on the motion was filed with the court on October 9, 2020.
On October 11, 2019, Teamsters Local 443 Health Services & Insurance Plan, St. Paul Electrical Construction Pension Plan, St. Paul Electrical Construction Workers Supplemental Pension Plan (2014 Restatement), Retirement Medical Funding Plan for the St. Paul Electrical Workers, and San Antonio Fire & Police Pension Fund filed a complaint for a purported derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to oversee the compliance by certain of the Company's subsidiaries (including the Company's former subsidiary Medical Initiatives, Inc. ("MII")) with federal regulations, allegedly resulting in the payment of fines and penalties in connection with the settlements with the USAO-EDNY in fiscal 2017 and 2018 that resolved claims arising from MII's pre-filled syringe program. In December 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. After briefing and oral argument, on August 24, 2020 the Delaware Court of Chancery denied Defendants' motion to dismiss. On September 24, 2020, the Board of Directors of the Company established a Special Litigation Committee to conduct an investigation concerning the plaintiffs’ allegations. On October 28, 2020, the Special Litigation Committee filed a motion to stay the litigation pending completion of its investigation. On November 10, 2020, the Delaware Court of Chancery granted the Special Litigation Committee’s motion to stay the litigation.

On July 17, 2020, CCAR Investments, Inc. filed a complaint for a purported derivative action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against the Company and certain of its current and former officers and directors (“CCAR Defendants”). The complaint alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duty, corporate waste and unjust enrichment allegedly arising from the Company’s controlled substance diversion control programs and violation of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 30, 2020, a group of interested stockholders (the “Proposed Intervenors”) filed a motion to intervene and stay the proceedings filed by CCAR Investments, Inc. The CCAR Defendants opposed the motion to intervene and stay on August 13, 2020. CCAR Investments, Inc. also filed an opposition to the motion to intervene and stay. On August 14, 2020, the CCAR Defendants answered the complaint and filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. On October 13, 2020, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware heard oral arguments on the Proposed Intervenors' motion to intervene and stay the litigation and denied Proposed Intervenors' motion without prejudice. On October 29, 2020 the parties filed a stipulation permitting CCAR Investments, Inc. to file an amended complaint on or before November 20, 2020, and CCAR Defendants shall respond to the amended complaint on or before December 18, 2020.
    New York State ("NYS") enacted the Opioid Stewardship Act ("OSA"), which went into effect on July 1, 2018. The OSA established an annual $100 million Opioid Stewardship Fund (the "Fund") and requires manufacturers, distributors, and importers licensed in NYS to ratably source the Fund. The ratable share of the assessment for each licensee was to be based upon opioids sold or distributed to or within NYS. In the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2018, the Company accrued $22.0 million as an estimate of its liability under the OSA for opioids distributed from January 1, 2017 through September 30, 2018 and recognized this reserve in Cost of Goods Sold on its Consolidated Statement of Operations and in Accrued Expenses and Other on its Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2018. In December 2018, the OSA was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and, as a result, the Company reversed the $22.0 million accrual in the fiscal quarter ended December 31, 2018. In September 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, and, as a result, the Company accrued $14.8 million in the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 as it revised its estimated liability for the 2017 and 2018 calendar years. The Company has been in compliance with subsequent legislation passed by NYS regarding sales of prescription opioids for calendar years beginning in 2019.
In December 2019, Reliable Pharmacy, together with other retail pharmacies and North Sunflower Medical Center, filed a civil antitrust complaint against multiple generic drug manufacturers, and also included claims against the Company, H.D. Smith, and other drug distributors and industry participants. The case is filed as a putative class action and plaintiffs purport to represent a class of drug purchasers including other retail pharmacies and healthcare providers. The case has been consolidated for multidistrict litigation proceedings before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The complaint alleges that the Company and others in the industry participated in a conspiracy to fix prices, allocate markets and rig bids regarding generic drugs. In March 2020, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint. On July 15, 2020, the Company and other industry participants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.