Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation

6 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation

5. Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation

Commitments

Generic Sourcing Venture with CVS Health Corporation ("CVS Health")

In July 2014, we established Red Oak Sourcing, LLC ("Red Oak Sourcing"), a U.S.-based generic pharmaceutical sourcing venture with CVS Health for an initial term of 10 years. Red Oak Sourcing negotiates generic pharmaceutical supply contracts on behalf of its participants. Due to the achievement of predetermined milestones, we are required to make quarterly payments of $45.6 million to CVS Health for the remainder of the initial term.

Contingencies

New York Opioid Stewardship Act

In April 2018, the State of New York passed a budget which included the Opioid Stewardship Act (the "OSA"). The OSA created an aggregate $100 million annual assessment on all manufacturers and distributors licensed to sell or distribute opioids in New York. Under the OSA, each licensed manufacturer and distributor would be required to pay a portion of the assessment based on its share of the total morphine milligram equivalents sold or distributed in New York during the applicable calendar year, beginning in 2017.

In December 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the OSA was unconstitutional and enjoined its enforcement (the "Ruling"). In April 2019, the State, among other things, amended the OSA so that the assessment would only cover opioid sales in 2017 and 2018, subject to the State's appeal of the Ruling. In September 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Ruling and, as a result, New York will likely seek to collect amounts due from distributors and manufacturers for 2017 and 2018.

We accrue contingencies if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be estimated. Because of the Second Circuit ruling, we recorded an aggregate accrual of $41 million for calendar year 2017 and 2018 based on the estimated payment amount, which is our best estimate of the OSA payments probable at December 31, 2020.

Legal Proceedings

We become involved from time to time in disputes, litigation and regulatory matters.

From time to time, we determine that products we source, manufacture or market do not meet our specifications, regulatory requirements, or published standards. When we or a regulatory

agency identify a potential quality or regulatory issue, we investigate and take appropriate corrective action. Such actions have led to product recalls, costs to repair or replace affected products, temporary interruptions in product sales, product liability claims and lawsuits and can lead to action by regulators. Even absent an identified regulatory or quality issue or product recall, we can become subject to product liability claims and lawsuits.

From time to time, we become aware through employees, internal audits or other parties of possible compliance matters, such as complaints or concerns relating to accounting, internal accounting controls, financial reporting, auditing, or other ethical matters or relating to compliance with laws such as healthcare fraud and abuse, anti-corruption or anti-bribery laws. When we become aware of such possible compliance matters, we investigate internally and take appropriate corrective action. In addition, from time to time, we receive subpoenas or requests for information from various federal or state agencies relating to our business or to the business of a customer, supplier or other industry participants. Internal investigations, subpoenas or requests for information could directly or indirectly lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of legal proceedings against us or result in sanctions.

We have been named from time to time in qui tam actions initiated by private third parties. In such actions, the private parties purport to act on behalf of federal or state governments, allege that false claims have been submitted for payment by the government and may receive an award if their claims are successful. After a private party has filed a qui tam action, the government must investigate the private party's claim and determine whether to intervene in and take control over the litigation. These actions may remain under seal while the government makes this determination. If the government declines to intervene, the private party may nonetheless continue to pursue the litigation on his or her own purporting to act on behalf of the government.

We accrue for contingencies related to disputes, litigation and regulatory matters if it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Because these matters are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, assessing contingencies is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review contingencies to determine whether our accruals and related disclosures are adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ from these estimates.

We recognize income from the favorable outcome of litigation when we receive the associated cash or assets.

We recognize estimated loss contingencies for certain litigation and regulatory matters and income from favorable resolution of litigation in litigation (recoveries)/charges in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings/(loss).

Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations

Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, have been named as defendants in approximately 3,300 lawsuits relating to

the distribution of prescription opioid pain medications. The lawsuits seek equitable relief and monetary damages based on a variety of legal theories including various common law claims, such as public nuisance, negligence and unjust enrichment as well as violations of controlled substance laws, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and various other statutes. These lawsuits also name pharmaceutical manufacturers, retail pharmacy chains and other entities as defendants.

States & Political Subdivisions

Approximately 2,800 of these lawsuits have been filed by counties, municipalities, cities and political subdivisions in various federal, state, and other courts. The vast majority of these lawsuits were filed in U.S. federal court and have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings in a Multi-District Litigation proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (the “MDL”).

In addition, 25 state attorneys general have filed lawsuits against distributors, including us, in various state courts. We have also received requests, civil investigative demands, subpoenas or requests for information from additional state attorneys general offices and governmental authorities.

A trial in West Virginia in the Cabell County and City of Huntington cases is scheduled for May 2021 and a trial is scheduled to begin in September 2021 in the case brought by the Ohio Attorney General. Trial dates remain uncertain due in part to uncertainties arising from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In October 2019, we agreed in principle to a global settlement framework with a leadership group of state attorneys general; the framework is designed to resolve all pending and future opioid lawsuits and claims by states and political subdivisions, but not private plaintiffs (the "Settlement Framework"). This Settlement Framework is the basis for the ongoing negotiation of definitive terms and documentation. Negotiations under the Settlement Framework continue.

As a result of these discussions, we have recorded total pre-tax charges of $1.02 billion and $5.63 billion in litigation charges/(recoveries), net in the six months ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. In total, we have $6.59 billion accrued at December 31, 2020, included in deferred income taxes and other liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets, which represents the cash component. We are unable to estimate the range of possible loss associated with these matters. Definitive terms for a settlement pursuant to the Settlement Framework continue to be negotiated, and there is no assurance that the necessary parties will agree to a definitive settlement agreement or that the contingencies to any agreement will be satisfied.

Because loss contingencies are inherently unpredictable and unfavorable developments or resolutions can occur, the assessment is highly subjective and requires judgments about future events. We regularly review these opioid litigation matters to determine whether our accrual is adequate. The amount of ultimate loss may differ materially from this accrual. We continue to

strongly dispute the allegations made in these lawsuits and reaching an agreement in principle on a global settlement framework is not an admission of liability or wrongdoing.

Private Plaintiffs

The Settlement Framework does not address claims by private parties, which includes unions and other health and welfare funds, hospital systems and other healthcare providers, businesses and individuals. Private parties had brought approximately 423 lawsuits as of February 1, 2021. Of these, 127 are purported class actions. The causes of action asserted by these plaintiffs are similar to those asserted by public plaintiffs. We are vigorously defending ourselves in these matters.

Affirmative Insurance Litigation

In October 2020, we filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union Fire Insurance”), seeking a declaration that defense costs are recoverable under our insurance for certain of the lawsuits described above. We have not recorded a receivable for any recoveries related to the litigation against National Union Fire Insurance at December 31, 2020.

Department of Justice Investigations

We have received federal grand jury subpoenas issued in connection with investigations being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York and the Fraud Section of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ"). We have also received civil requests for information from other DOJ offices. We believe that these investigations concern operation of our anti-diversion program, our anti-diversion policies and procedures, and distribution of certain controlled substances. We are cooperating with these requests. We are unable to predict the outcome of any of these investigations.

Cordis Product Liability Lawsuits

As of February 1, 2021, we are named as a defendant in 373 product liability lawsuits coordinated in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by approximately 4,800 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava ("IVC") filter products. Another 31 lawsuits involving similar claims by approximately 36 plaintiffs are pending in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages. We continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these lawsuits and are engaged in resolution discussions with certain plaintiffs.

At December 31, 2020, we had a total of $508 million net of estimated insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal defense costs related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits which are presented on a gross basis in the condensed consolidated balance sheets. We believe there is a range of estimated losses with respect to these matters. Because no amount within the range is a better estimate than any other amount within the range, we have accrued the minimum amount in the range. We estimate the high

end of the range to be approximately $990 million, net of estimated insurance recoveries.

Shareholder Securities Litigation

In August 2019, the Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension & Relief Fund filed a purported class action complaint against Cardinal Health and certain current and former officers and employees in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio purportedly on behalf of all purchasers of our common shares between March 2015 and May 2018. In June 2020, the court appointed 1199 SEIU Health Care Employees Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and a consolidated amended complaint was filed in September 2020. The amended complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the acquisition integration of the Cordis business and inventory and supply chain problems within the Cordis business, and seeks to recover unspecified damages and equitable relief for the alleged misstatements and omissions. The complaint also alleges that one of the individual defendants violated Section 20A of the Exchange Act because he sold shares of Cardinal Health stock during the time period. In November 2020, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. We believe that the claims asserted in this complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against them.

Specialty Solutions DOJ Investigation

In November 2018, we received investigative demands from the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts (the "USAO") pertaining to the U.S. federal healthcare fraud and abuse laws. These requests sought, among other things, documents and information relating to discounts and rebates offered or provided to certain Specialty Solutions customers. We are cooperating with these requests and are engaged in resolution discussions with the USAO. In connection with these discussions, we recorded $13 million of expense within litigation charges/(recoveries) on our condensed consolidated statement of operations during the three months ended December 31, 2020. We are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible additional losses for this matter.

Other Civil Litigation

Generic Pharmaceutical Pricing Antitrust Litigation

In December 2019, pharmaceutical distributors including us were added as defendants in a civil class action lawsuit filed by indirect purchasers of generic drugs, such as hospitals and retail pharmacies. The indirect purchaser case is part of a multidistrict litigation consisting of multiple individual class action matters consolidated in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The indirect purchaser plaintiffs allege that pharmaceutical distributors encouraged manufacturers to increase prices, provided anti-competitive pricing information to manufacturers and improperly engaged in customer allocation. We have filed a motion to dismiss the complaints and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Impurity Litigation

Many participants in the pharmaceutical supply chain, including active pharmaceutical ingredient ("API") manufacturers, finished dose manufacturers, repackagers, distributors, and retailers have been named as defendants in lawsuits arising out of recalls of certain medications due to alleged impurities in the active pharmaceutical ingredients or finished product.

In February 2019, a Multidistrict Litigation was created in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (the “Sartan MDL”) alleging API impurities in certain generic blood pressure medications. We have been named as a defendant in the Sartan MDL. We are vigorously defending ourselves in this matter. We were also named as a defendant in a Multidistrict Litigation alleging impurities in Zantac and its generic form, ranitidine (the "Zantac MDL"); however, all claims against us in the Zantac MDL have been dismissed, in some cases, with prejudice.