Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	6 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments, Contingent Liabilities and Litigation	6. 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. In August 2021, we amended our agreement to extend the term through June 2029. We are required to make quarterly payments to CVS Health for the term of the arrangement. 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. The constitutionality of portions of the OSA has been challenged in court. In December 2018, the OSA was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. district court for the Southern District of New York. Subsequently, New York passed a new statute that modified the assessment going forward and limited the OSA to two years (2017 and 2018). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's decision on procedural grounds. In February 2021, the Second Circuit stayed the effect of the ruling pending a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit's opinion. In October 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision. 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 during the six months ended December 31, 2020 based on the probable estimated payment amount. In the three months ended December 31, 2021, we paid the State of New York $20 million, our portion of the assessment for calendar year 2017. As a result, as of December 31, 2021, we had an accrual of $20 million, which reflects our best estimate of the portion of the assessment that we may owe for sales during calendar year 2018. 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; however, losses and recoveries of lost profits from disputes that occur in the ordinary course of business are included within segment profit. For example, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2022, our Pharmaceutical segment profit was positively impacted by a $16 million judgment for lost profits related to an ordinary course intellectual property rights claim. Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, have been named as defendants in approximately 3,400 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 2,900 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. 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 pending and future opioid lawsuits and claims by states and political subdivisions, but not private plaintiffs (the "Settlement Framework"). In July 2021, we announced that we and two other national distributors have negotiated a proposed settlement agreement (the “Proposed Settlement Agreement”) and settlement process that, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the settlement of the vast majority of opioid lawsuits filed by state and local governmental entities. The settlement process does not contemplate participation by any non-governmental or non-political entities or individuals. The Proposed Settlement Agreement includes a cash component, pursuant to which we would pay up to approximately $6.37 billion, the majority of which would be paid over 18 years. The exact payment amount will depend on several factors, including the participation rate of states and political subdivisions, the extent to which states take action to foreclose opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions (e.g., laws barring or limiting opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions), and the extent to which political subdivisions in participating states file additional opioid lawsuits against us after the Proposed Settlement Agreement becomes effective. The Proposed Settlement Agreement also includes injunctive relief terms related to distributors’ controlled substance anti-diversion programs, including with respect to: (1) governance; (2) independence and training of the personnel operating controlled substances monitoring programs; (3) due diligence for new and existing customers; (4) ordering limits for certain products; and (5) suspicious order monitoring. A monitor will be selected to oversee compliance with these provisions for a period of five years. In addition, we and the two other settling distributors will engage a third-party vendor to act as a clearinghouse for data aggregation and reporting, which distributors will fund the for ten years. As contemplated under the Proposed Settlement Agreement, in September 2021, the three distributors determined that a sufficient number of states had agreed to participate in the Proposed Settlement Agreement to proceed to the next phase of the settlement process, which was the subdivision sign-on period. The subdivision sign-on period ended January 26, 2022. Each participating state will now make a determination as to whether a sufficient number of its political subdivisions have agreed to the Proposed Settlement Agreement (or otherwise had their claims foreclosed) to proceed with the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Following that determination by participating states, each of the three distributors will independently determine whether a sufficient number of subdivisions, including both those litigating and those that have not sued, have agreed to participate in the Proposed Settlement Agreement (or otherwise had their claims foreclosed) to proceed to execution. This process is currently contemplated to end in February 2022. The Proposed Settlement Agreement remains subject to contingencies. It is possible that a sufficient number of states and subdivisions will not agree to the Proposed Settlement Agreement or that other required contingencies will not be satisfied. If the required contingencies are satisfied, the Proposed Settlement Agreement is expected to become effective in April 2022. During the period between the satisfaction of contingencies and the effective date, the participating states and the distributors would cooperate to obtain consent judgments embodying the terms of the Proposed Settlement Agreement in each participating state and dismissing lawsuits of participating states and subdivisions. In connection with the negotiations of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, we and the two other national distributors have entered into a settlement with each of the states of Florida, New York, Ohio and Rhode Island and their participating subdivisions. If the Proposed Settlement Agreement becomes effective, these states and their participating subdivisions will become a part of it. West Virginia subdivisions and Native American tribes are not a part of this settlement process and we have been involved in separate negotiations with these groups. In September 2021 we announced that we, along with two other national distributors, had reached an agreement with the Cherokee Nation in connection with ongoing negotiations toward a broader agreement with Native American tribes. In January 2022, we, along with two other national distributors, entered into a term sheet with the Native American tribes. A bench trial before a federal judge in West Virginia brought by Cabell County and City of Huntington against us and two other national distributors concluded in July 2021. The judge has not yet issued a decision. In addition, a bench trial in the case brought by the Washington Attorney General against us and the same two other national distributors began in November 2021 in Washington state court. Trials are inherently unpredictable and it is possible that the outcome of these trials, either individually or in the aggregate, could materially negatively impact our financial results, cash flows or results of operations. During the six months ended December 31, 2021, we paid into escrow the majority of our first annual payment under the Proposed Settlement Agreement, which is reflected in prepaid expenses and other assets in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We also made certain payments under the separate New York and Ohio settlements. In total, we have $6.68 billion accrued at December 31, 2021, of which $480 million is included in other accrued liabilities and the remainder is included in deferred income taxes and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. During the six months ended December 31, 2020, we recorded total pre-tax charges of $1.02 billion in litigation (recoveries)/charges, net in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings. 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, whether as a result of settlement discussions, a judicial decision or verdict or otherwise, but we are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible additional losses for these matters. 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. 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 investigations. We are unable to predict the outcome of any of these investigations. Private Plaintiffs The Proposed Settlement Agreement 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 alleging personal injury. Private parties had brought approximately 464 lawsuits as of January 25, 2022. Of these, 147 are purported class actions. The causes of action asserted by these plaintiffs are similar to those asserted by public plaintiffs. A trial in a case involving 21 plaintiffs is scheduled to begin in state court in Georgia in March 2022. We are vigorously defending ourselves in all of these matters; however, trials are inherently unpredictable and it is possible that an unfavorable outcome in these matters, individually or in the aggregate, could have a negative impact on our financial results. Insurance Litigation We are involved in legal proceedings with two insurers related to the availability of insurance coverage for the lawsuits described above. In October 2020, we filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) seeking a declaration that National Union is obligated to reimburse us for defense costs incurred in connection with the lawsuits described above. In January 2021, Swiss Re International SE commenced an arbitration in London seeking a determination that it does not have an obligation to reimburse us for defense and indemnity expenses incurred in connection with the lawsuits described above. We have not recorded a receivable for any recoveries related to these insurance litigation matters as of December 31, 2021. Cordis IVC Filter Matters Product Liability Lawsuits As of January 25, 2022, we are named as a defendant in 443 product liability lawsuits coordinated in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by approximately 5,750 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava ("IVC") filter products. Another 32 lawsuits involving similar claims by approximately 36 plaintiffs are pending in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages. In July 2021, we entered into an agreement to settle approximately 1,300 claims. This agreement is subject to certain contingencies. We continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these lawsuits and are engaged in ongoing resolution discussions with certain plaintiffs. At December 31, 2021, we had a total of $554 million net of estimated insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal defense costs, related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits in our 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 $1.09 billion, net of estimated insurance recoveries. The sale of the Cordis disposal group does not include product liability related to the IVC filters in the U.S. and Canada, which we retained. New Mexico Attorney General Action In August 2021, the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico filed an action against certain IVC filter manufacturers, including us, alleging claims under New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act, Medicaid Fraud Act and Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. The allegations made are similar to those made in the product liability lawsuits, described above. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims. SEC Investigation In February 2021, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requesting the production of documents from 2015 through 2019 relating to inventory in the Cordis business, analysis of goodwill of the Medical segment and other matters. We are cooperating with this inquiry and related requests and cannot predict the outcome or duration of the investigation. 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 Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the acquisition and 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 September 2021, the court denied our motion to dismiss. 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, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts (the "USAO") commenced an investigation of Cardinal Health regarding possible violations of the U.S. healthcare fraud and abuse laws. The USAO sought, among other things, documents and information relating to discounts and rebates offered or provided to certain Specialty Solutions customers. In January 2022, without admitting liability, we settled this matter with the DOJ for approximately $13 million, which was recorded as expense within litigation (recoveries)/charges net in our consolidated statement of earnings during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. Additionally, our Specialty Pharmaceutical Distribution business entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, under which it agreed to certain remedial measures, including no longer offering term-based up-front discounts. 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.

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; however, losses and recoveries of lost profits from disputes that occur in the ordinary course of business are included within segment profit. For

example, in the second quarter of fiscal year 2022, our Pharmaceutical segment profit was positively impacted by a $16 million judgment for lost profits related to an ordinary course intellectual property rights claim.

Opioid Lawsuits and Investigations

Pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, including us, have been named as defendants in approximately 3,400 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 2,900 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.

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 pending and future opioid lawsuits and claims by states and political subdivisions, but not private plaintiffs (the "Settlement Framework").

In July 2021, we announced that we and two other national distributors have negotiated a proposed settlement agreement (the “Proposed Settlement Agreement”) and settlement process that, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the settlement of the vast majority of opioid lawsuits filed by state and local governmental entities. The settlement process does not contemplate participation by any non-governmental or non-political entities or individuals.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement includes a cash component, pursuant to which we would pay up to approximately $6.37 billion, the majority of which would be paid over 18 years. The exact payment amount will depend on several factors, including the participation rate of states and political subdivisions, the extent to which states take action to foreclose opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions (e.g., laws barring or limiting opioid lawsuits by political subdivisions), and the extent to which political subdivisions in participating states file additional opioid lawsuits against us after the Proposed Settlement Agreement becomes effective.

The Proposed Settlement Agreement also includes injunctive relief terms related to distributors’ controlled substance anti-diversion programs, including with respect to: (1) governance; (2) independence and training of the personnel operating controlled substances monitoring programs; (3) due diligence for new and existing customers; (4) ordering limits for certain products; and (5) suspicious order monitoring. A monitor will be selected to oversee compliance with these provisions for a period of five years. In addition, we and the two other settling distributors will engage a third-party vendor to act as a clearinghouse for data aggregation and reporting, which distributors will fund the for ten years.

As contemplated under the Proposed Settlement Agreement, in September 2021, the three distributors determined that a sufficient number of states had agreed to participate in the Proposed Settlement Agreement to proceed to the next phase of the settlement process, which was the subdivision sign-on period. The subdivision sign-on period ended January 26, 2022. Each participating state will now make a determination as to whether a sufficient number of its political subdivisions have agreed to the Proposed Settlement Agreement (or otherwise had their claims foreclosed) to proceed with the Proposed Settlement Agreement. Following that determination by participating states, each of the three distributors will independently determine whether a sufficient number of subdivisions, including both those litigating and those that have not sued, have agreed to participate in the Proposed Settlement Agreement (or otherwise had their claims foreclosed) to proceed to execution. This process is currently contemplated to end in February 2022. The Proposed Settlement Agreement remains subject to contingencies. It is possible that a sufficient number of states and subdivisions will not agree to the Proposed Settlement Agreement or that other required contingencies will not be satisfied.

If the required contingencies are satisfied, the Proposed Settlement Agreement is expected to become effective in April 2022. During the period between the satisfaction of contingencies and the effective date, the participating states and the distributors would cooperate to obtain consent judgments embodying the terms of the Proposed Settlement Agreement in each participating state and dismissing lawsuits of participating states and subdivisions.

In connection with the negotiations of the Proposed Settlement Agreement, we and the two other national distributors have entered into a settlement with each of the states of Florida, New York, Ohio and Rhode Island and their participating subdivisions. If the Proposed Settlement Agreement becomes effective, these states and their participating subdivisions will become a part of it.

West Virginia subdivisions and Native American tribes are not a part of this settlement process and we have been involved in separate negotiations with these groups. In September 2021 we announced that we, along with two other national distributors, had reached an agreement with the Cherokee Nation in connection with ongoing negotiations toward a broader agreement with Native American tribes. In January 2022, we, along with two other

national distributors, entered into a term sheet with the Native American tribes.

A bench trial before a federal judge in West Virginia brought by Cabell County and City of Huntington against us and two other national distributors concluded in July 2021. The judge has not yet issued a decision. In addition, a bench trial in the case brought by the Washington Attorney General against us and the same two other national distributors began in November 2021 in Washington state court. Trials are inherently unpredictable and it is possible that the outcome of these trials, either individually or in the aggregate, could materially negatively impact our financial results, cash flows or results of operations.

During the six months ended December 31, 2021, we paid into escrow the majority of our first annual payment under the Proposed Settlement Agreement, which is reflected in prepaid expenses and other assets in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We also made certain payments under the separate New York and Ohio settlements. In total, we have $6.68 billion accrued at December 31, 2021, of which $480 million is included in other accrued liabilities and the remainder is included in deferred income taxes and other liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. During the six months ended December 31, 2020, we recorded total pre-tax charges of $1.02 billion in litigation (recoveries)/charges, net in our condensed consolidated statements of earnings.

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, whether as a result of settlement discussions, a judicial decision or verdict or otherwise, but we are not able to estimate a range of reasonably possible additional losses for these matters. 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.

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 investigations. We are unable to predict the outcome of any of these investigations.

Private Plaintiffs

The Proposed Settlement Agreement 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 alleging personal injury. Private parties had brought approximately 464 lawsuits as of January 25, 2022. Of these, 147 are purported class actions. The causes of action asserted by these plaintiffs are similar to those asserted by public plaintiffs.

A trial in a case involving 21 plaintiffs is scheduled to begin in state court in Georgia in March 2022. We are vigorously defending ourselves in all of these matters; however, trials are inherently unpredictable and it is possible that an unfavorable outcome in these matters, individually or in the aggregate, could have a negative impact on our financial results.

Insurance Litigation

We are involved in legal proceedings with two insurers related to the availability of insurance coverage for the lawsuits described above. In October 2020, we filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, PA (“National Union”) seeking a declaration that National Union is obligated to reimburse us for defense costs incurred in connection with the lawsuits described above. In January 2021, Swiss Re International SE commenced an arbitration in London seeking a determination that it does not have an obligation to reimburse us for defense and indemnity expenses incurred in connection with the lawsuits described above. We have not recorded a receivable for any recoveries related to these insurance litigation matters as of December 31, 2021.

Cordis IVC Filter Matters

Product Liability Lawsuits

As of January 25, 2022, we are named as a defendant in 443 product liability lawsuits coordinated in Alameda County Superior Court in California involving claims by approximately 5,750 plaintiffs that allege personal injuries associated with the use of Cordis OptEase and TrapEase inferior vena cava ("IVC") filter products. Another 32 lawsuits involving similar claims by approximately 36 plaintiffs are pending in other jurisdictions. These lawsuits seek a variety of remedies, including unspecified monetary damages. In July 2021, we entered into an agreement to settle approximately 1,300 claims. This agreement is subject to certain contingencies. We continue to vigorously defend ourselves in these lawsuits and are engaged in ongoing resolution discussions with certain plaintiffs.

At December 31, 2021, we had a total of $554 million net of estimated insurance recoveries, accrued for losses and legal defense costs, related to the Cordis IVC filter lawsuits in our 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 $1.09 billion, net of estimated insurance recoveries. The sale of the Cordis disposal group does not include product liability related to the IVC filters in the U.S. and Canada, which we retained.

New Mexico Attorney General Action

In August 2021, the Attorney General for the State of New Mexico filed an action against certain IVC filter manufacturers, including us, alleging claims under New Mexico's Unfair Practices Act, Medicaid Fraud Act and Fraud Against Taxpayers Act. The allegations made are similar to those made in the product liability lawsuits, described above. We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against these claims.

SEC Investigation

In February 2021, we received a subpoena from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission requesting the production of documents from 2015 through 2019 relating to inventory in the Cordis business, analysis of goodwill of the Medical segment and other matters. We are cooperating with this inquiry and related requests and cannot predict the outcome or duration of the investigation.

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 Exchange Act of 1934 by making misrepresentations and omissions related to the acquisition and 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 September 2021, the court denied our motion to dismiss. 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, the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts (the "USAO") commenced an investigation of Cardinal Health regarding possible violations of the U.S. healthcare fraud and abuse laws. The USAO sought, among other things, documents and information relating to discounts and rebates offered or provided to certain Specialty Solutions customers. In January 2022, without admitting liability, we settled this matter with the DOJ for approximately $13 million, which was recorded as expense within litigation (recoveries)/charges net in our consolidated statement of earnings during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021. Additionally, our Specialty Pharmaceutical Distribution business entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, under which it agreed to certain remedial measures, including no longer offering term-based up-front discounts.

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.