Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

Commitments and Contingent LiabilitiesIn addition to commitments and obligations incurred in the ordinary course of business, the Company is subject to a variety of claims and legal proceedings, including claims from customers and vendors, pending and potential legal actions for damages, governmental investigations, and other matters. The Company and its affiliates are parties to the legal claims and proceedings described below and in Financial Note 21 to the Company’s 2020 Annual Report which disclosure is incorporated in this footnote by this reference. The Company is vigorously defending itself against those claims and in those proceedings. Significant developments in those matters are described below. If the Company is unsuccessful in defending, or if it determines to settle, any of these matters, it may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction and/or be forced to change how it operates its business, which could have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations.

Unless otherwise stated, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or a range of possible loss for the matters described below. Often, it is not reasonably possible for the Company to determine that a loss is probable for a claim, or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or a range of loss, because of the limited information available and the potential effects of future events and decisions by third parties, such as courts and regulators, that will determine the ultimate resolution of the claim. Many of the matters described are at preliminary stages, raise novel theories of liability or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. It is not uncommon for claims to be resolved over many years. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly, to determine whether the loss probability has changed and whether it can make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. When the Company determines that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, it records a liability in the amount of its estimate for the ultimate loss. The Company also provides disclosure when it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed its recorded liability.

I. Litigation and Claims Involving Distribution of Controlled Substances

The Company and its affiliates are defendants in many cases asserting claims related to distribution of controlled substances. They are named as defendants along with other pharmaceutical wholesale distributors, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and retail pharmacy chains. The plaintiffs in these actions include state attorneys general, county and municipal governments, hospitals, Indian tribes, pension funds, third-party payors, and individuals. These actions have been filed in state and federal courts throughout the U.S., and in Puerto Rico, and Canada. They seek monetary damages and other forms of relief based on a variety of causes of action, including negligence, public nuisance, unjust enrichment, and civil conspiracy, as well as alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), state and federal controlled substances laws, and other statutes.

Since December 5, 2017, nearly all such cases pending in federal district courts have been transferred for consolidated pre-trial proceedings to a multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio captioned In re: National Prescription Opiate Litigation, Case No. 17-md-2804. At present, there are approximately 2,800 cases under the jurisdiction of the MDL court.

Three cases involving McKesson that were previously part of the federal MDL have been remanded to other federal courts for discovery and trial. On January 14, 2020, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation finalized its Conditional Remand Order, ordering that the cases against the three largest distributors brought by Cabell County, West Virginia and the City of Huntington, West Virginia be remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia and a trial date has been scheduled for October 19, 2020. On February 5, 2020, the case brought by the City and County of San Francisco was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; trial has been set for June 2021. Also on February 5, 2020, the case brought by the Cherokee Nation was remanded to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.

The Company is also named in approximately 360 similar state court cases pending in 37 states plus Puerto Rico. These include actions filed by 26 state attorneys general, and some by or on behalf of individuals, including wrongful death lawsuits, and putative class action lawsuits brought on behalf of children with neonatal abstinence syndrome due to alleged exposure to opioids in utero. Trial dates have been set in several of these state cases. For example, trial was previously set to begin in March 2020 in the Supreme Court of New York, Suffolk County for a case brought by the New York attorney general and two New York county governments, but the trial was postponed in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. A trial has been scheduled for October 19, 2020, in the case brought by the Ohio attorney general against McKesson and two other large distributors.

The Company has been involved in discussions with the objective of achieving broad resolution of opioid-related claims brought by governmental entities. For example, on October 21, 2019, four state attorneys general announced certain terms of a proposed framework for the potential settlement of those opioid claims which they indicated they would find acceptable. The proposed framework would have expected the three largest U.S. pharmaceutical distributors to pay an aggregate amount of up to $18.0 billion over 18 years, with up to approximately $6.9 billion over 18 years expected from the Company, with any finally-determined amount being subject to adjustment based on various contingencies, including sufficient resolution with States, political subdivisions, and other governmental entities nationwide. The proposed framework also would have required the three distributors, including the Company, to adopt changes to anti-diversion programs and to participate in a program involving the distribution of certain medication used to treat opioid use disorder. Discussions with attorneys general and other parties continue. If the negotiating parties agree on potential terms for a broad resolution, those potential terms would need to be agreed to by numerous other state and local governments before an agreement could be finalized.

Because of the novelty of the claims asserted and the complexity of litigation involving numerous parties across multiple jurisdictions, the Company has determined that liability is not probable, and is not able to reasonably estimate a loss or range of loss. The COVID-19 pandemic introduced additional uncertainty related to delays in proceedings, economic impacts and other implications. To be viable, a broad settlement arrangement would require participation of numerous parties and the resolution of many complex issues. The scope and terms of any settlement framework, including the financial terms, have not been determined. Because of the many uncertainties associated with any potential settlement arrangements, the significance of unresolved elements of a potential settlement, and the uncertainty of the scope of potential participation by plaintiffs, the Company has not reached a point where settlement is probable, and as such has not recognized any liability related to any potential settlement framework as of June 30, 2020. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims pending against it and intends to vigorously defend against all such claims. An adverse judgment or negotiated resolution in any of these matters could have a material adverse impact on the Company’s financial position, cash flows or liquidity, or results of operations.

The Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were defendants in a consolidated shareholder derivative action in the Northern District of California captioned In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation, No. 4:17-cv-1850. The consolidated complaint alleged claims of breach of fiduciary duty, waste, and insider trading purportedly on behalf of the Company. The Company was named as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint alleged that the defendants violated their fiduciary duties by causing, allowing, or otherwise failing to prevent the purported conduct underlying the Company's previously disclosed agreement with the Drug Enforcement Administration (“DEA”), Department of Justice (“DOJ”), and various U.S. Attorneys' offices to settle potential administrative and civil claims relating to investigations about the Company's suspicious order reporting practices for controlled substances. The consolidated complaint sought unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement, attorneys' fees, and other equitable relief. The Company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were also defendants in a similar consolidated shareholder derivative action in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned In re McKesson Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation, No. 2017-0736. The parties reached an agreement to resolve these shareholder derivative actions. The court in the In re McKesson Corporation Derivative Litigation action issued a final judgment and order approving the settlement on April 22, 2020. Under that agreement: (i) on June 9, 2020, insurance carriers paid the Company $131 million net of attorneys’ fees and expenses awarded by the court to plaintiffs’ counsel; and (ii) the Company is required to implement and maintain certain corporate governance enhancements for at least four years. On April 24, 2020, pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the parties to the In re McKesson Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation action pending in the Delaware Court of Chancery filed a stipulation dismissing that action with prejudice.

II. Other Litigation and Claims

On May 17, 2013, the Company was served with a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California by True Health Chiropractic Inc., alleging that McKesson sent unsolicited marketing faxes in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (“TCPA”), as amended by the Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005 or JFPA, True Health Chiropractic Inc., et al. v. McKesson Corporation, et al., No. CV-13-02219 (HG). Plaintiffs seek statutory damages from $500 to $1,500 per violation plus injunctive relief. True Health Chiropractic later amended its complaint, adding McLaughlin Chiropractic Associates as an additional named plaintiff and McKesson Technologies Inc. as a defendant. Both plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated the TCPA by sending faxes that did not contain notices regarding how to opt out of receiving the faxes. On July 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. On August 22, 2016, the court denied plaintiffs’ motion. On July 17, 2018, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of class certification and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings. On August 13, 2019, the court granted plaintiffs’ renewed motion for class certification. After class notice and the opt-out period, 9,490 fax numbers remain in the class, representing 48,769 faxes received. On March 5, 2020, McKesson moved to decertify the class and moved for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ claim for treble damages. Plaintiffs’ moved for summary judgment on the same day. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial date for this case was taken off calendar to be re-scheduled during 2021.

On June 17, 2014, U.S. Oncology Specialty, LP (“USOS”) was served with a fifth amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York by a relator alleging that USOS, among others, solicited and received illegal “kickbacks” from Amgen in violation of the Anti-Kickback Statute, the federal False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes, and seeking damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts, United States ex rel. Hanks v. Amgen, Inc., et al., CV-08-03096 (SJ). Previously, the U.S. declined to intervene in the case as to all allegations and defendants except for Amgen. On September 17, 2018, the court granted USOS’s motion to dismiss. Following the relator’s appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s order and remanded the suit to the district court, directing it to consider the question of whether the suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

On May 21, 2019, Jean E. Henry, a purported Company shareholder, filed a shareholder derivative complaint in the Superior Court of San Francisco, California against certain current and former officers and directors of the Company, and the Company as a nominal defendant, alleging violations of fiduciary duties and waste of corporate assets with respect to an alleged conspiracy to fix the prices of generic drugs, Henry v. Tyler, et al., CGC-19-576119. On May 23, 2019, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No. 19-cv-02869. On August 26, 2019, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint, removing all claims except for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty by the named current and former officers and directors of the Company. On January 21, 2020, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, and on July 1, 2020, the court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s amended complaint with prejudice.

In October 2019, the Company’s subsidiary NDCHealth Corporation dba RelayHealth (“RelayHealth”) was served with three purported class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege that RelayHealth violated the Sherman Act by entering into an agreement with co-defendant Surescripts, LLC not to compete in the electronic prescription routing market, and by conspiring with Surescripts, LLC to monopolize that market, Powell Prescription Center, et al. v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-06627; Intergrated Pharmaceutical Solutions LLC v. Surescripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-06778; Falconer Pharmacy, Inc. v. Surescripts LLC, et al., No. 1:19-cv-07035. In November 2019, three similar complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Kennebunk Village Pharmacy, Inc. v. SureScripts, LLC, et al., 1:19-cv-7445; Whitman v. SureScripts, LLC et al., No. 1:19-cv-7448; BBK Global Corp. v. SureScripts, LLC et al., 1:19-cv-7640. In December 2019, the six actions were consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints seek relief including treble damages, attorney fees, and costs. Subject to court approval, plaintiffs and RelayHealth reached an agreement to resolve the class action lawsuits with RelayHealth paying an amount that is not expected to be material in the context of the Company’s overall financial results. The settlement does not include any admission of liability, and RelayHealth expressly denies wrongdoing.

In July 2020, the Company was served with a first amended qui tam complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by a relator on behalf of the U.S., 27 states and the District of Columbia against McKesson Corporation, McKesson Specialty Distribution LLC, and McKesson Specialty Care Distribution Corporation, alleging that defendants violated the Anti-Kickback Statute, federal False Claims Act, and various state false claims statutes by providing certain business analytical tools to oncology practice customers, United States ex rel. Hart v. McKesson Corporation, et al., 15-cv-00903-RA. The U.S. and the named states have declined to intervene in the case. The complaint seeks relief including damages, treble damages, civil penalties, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit, all in unspecified amounts.

III. Government Subpoenas and Investigations

From time to time, the Company receives subpoenas or requests for information from various government agencies. The Company generally responds to such subpoenas and requests in a cooperative, thorough and timely manner. These responses sometimes require time and effort and can result in considerable costs being incurred by the Company. Such subpoenas and requests can lead to the assertion of claims or the commencement of civil or criminal legal proceedings against the Company and other members of the health care industry, as well as to settlements of claims against the Company. The Company responds to these requests in the ordinary course of business.

On July 21, 2020, McKesson received correspondence from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Tennessee alleging reporting and documentation deficiencies in violation of the Controlled Substances Act at the Company’s former and no longer operational RxPak facility and at its Distribution Center in Memphis, Tennessee, and seeking civil penalties.