Commitments and Contingent Liabilities

6 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

In 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 19 to the Company’s 2021 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, the Company is unable to determine that a loss is probable, or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or a range of loss, for a claim 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 remain unresolved over many years. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the likelihood of loss has changed and whether it can make a reasonable estimate of the loss or range of loss. When the Company determines that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, it records a liability for an estimated amount. 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. Amounts included within “Claims and litigation charges, net” in the Condensed Consolidated Statement of Operations consist of estimated loss contingencies related to opioid-related litigation matters.

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, tribal nations, hospitals, health and welfare 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.

The Company is also named in approximately 350 similar state court cases pending in 38 states plus Puerto Rico, along with 4 cases in Canada. 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 court cases. For example, trial in the case brought by the Washington attorney general is scheduled for November 15, 2021; trial in the case brought by the Rhode Island attorney general is scheduled for January 17, 2022; and the case brought by Dallas County, Texas, is scheduled to be trial-ready by February 7, 2022. Trial in the case brought by the Alabama attorney general was postponed until April 18, 2022, and the parties continue to engage in settlement negotiations.

On July 21, 2021, the Company and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors announced that they had negotiated a comprehensive proposed settlement agreement which, if all conditions are satisfied, would result in the settlement of a substantial majority of opioid lawsuits filed by state and local governmental entities. If the proposed settlement agreement and settlement process leads to final settlement, the three distributors would pay up to approximately $21 billion over 18 years, with up to $7.9 billion to be paid by the Company for its 38.1% portion; a minimum of 85% of such payments must be used by state and local governmental entities to remediate the opioid epidemic. Most of the remaining percentage relates to plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees and costs, and would be payable over a shorter time period.

The proposed agreement would also establish a clearinghouse that would consolidate controlled-substance distribution data from the three largest U.S. distributors, which will be available to the settling states to use as part of their anti-diversion efforts.

The proposed agreement only addresses the claims of U.S. state attorneys general and political subdivisions in participating states. The West Virginia subdivisions and Native American tribes are not part of this settlement process. The proposed agreement is subject to contingencies and will not become effective unless the Company determines that a sufficient number of states and political subdivisions, including those that have not sued, have agreed to be bound by the agreement (or otherwise had their claims foreclosed).

On September 4, 2021, the Company and the two other national distributors announced that 42 out of 49 eligible states, all 5 U.S. territories, and Washington, DC, had affirmatively signed on to the proposed agreement. The attorneys general of Alabama, Georgia, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Washington have not joined the proposed settlement. The distributors further announced that they had determined that enough states had signed on to the settlement for the proposed agreement to proceed to the next phase. During this phase, which is expected to end on January 2, 2022, each participating state will offer its political subdivisions, including those that have not sued, the opportunity to participate in the settlement. After the conclusion of this period, the Company will have 30 days to determine whether a sufficient number of states and political subdivisions have joined for the settlement to proceed to implementation.

The exact amount that would be due under the proposed agreement depends 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, and the extent to which political subdivisions in settling states file additional opioid lawsuits against the Company after the proposed agreement becomes effective. The proposed agreement contemplates that if certain governmental entities do not agree to a settlement under the framework, but the distributors nonetheless conclude that there is sufficient participation to warrant the settlement, there would be a corresponding reduction in the amount due from the Company to account for the unresolved claims of the governmental entities that do not participate. Those non-participating governmental entities would be entitled to pursue their claims against the Company and other defendants.

Consistent with the terms of the proposed agreement, the Company placed its first annual payment of approximately $354 million, into escrow on September 30, 2021. This amount excludes the proportionate allocation under the proposed settlement for each non-participating state and would be disbursed when and if the proposed agreement becomes effective. Subsequent annual payments would be due on July 15 of each year. The escrow payment was presented as restricted cash within “Prepaid expenses and other” in the Company’s Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2021.

On July 20, 2021, the Company announced that it and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors had agreed to pay up to $1.2 billion, of which the Company’s portion would be 38.1%, in a settlement with the State of New York and its participating subdivisions, including Nassau and Suffolk Counties, to resolve opioid-related claims. This settlement was negotiated in connection with the broad proposed settlement described above, but provides assurance that New York and its participating subdivisions will receive a settlement amount consistent with their allocations under the broad settlement framework, as well as certain attorneys’ fees and costs. If the broad settlement is finalized, New York and its participating subdivisions will become part of that broader agreement. On September 30, 2021, the Company paid its share of the first annual incremental payment of approximately $35 million to Nassau and Suffolk counties as a settlement of its liabilities over plaintiffs’ legal fees and costs.

On September 28, 2021, the Company and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors reached an agreement with the state of Ohio and its participating subdivisions and agreed to pay $881 million to resolve opioid-related claims. This settlement was negotiated in connection with the broad proposed settlement described above, but provides assurance that Ohio and its participating subdivisions will receive a settlement amount consistent with their allocations under the broad settlement framework, as well as certain attorneys’ fees and costs. If the broad settlement is finalized, Ohio and its participating subdivisions will become part of that broader agreement.

On September 28, 2021, the Company announced that it and the two other national distributors had reached an agreement with the Cherokee Nation to pay approximately $75 million over 6.5 years to resolve opioid-related claims, of which the Company’s portion would be 38.1%. This settlement was negotiated in parallel with ongoing negotiations toward a broad resolution of opioid-related claims brought by Native American tribes.

With respect to the West Virginia subdivisions, trial in the case of Cabell County and City of Huntington, occurred in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, and concluded on July 28, 2021. The outcome of that trial is pending. The claims of certain other West Virginia subdivisions are pending in the federal MDL and before the state Mass Litigation Panel. On September 30, 2021, the Mass Litigation Panel issued an order scheduling trial on the public nuisance claims of certain municipalities against the Company and the two other national pharmaceutical distributors for July 5, 2022.

The Company believes that a broad settlement of opioid claims by governmental entities is probable, and that the loss related thereto can be reasonably estimated. The Company recorded a charge of $8.1 billion ($6.8 billion after-tax) in the fiscal year ended March 31, 2021 related to its share of the global settlement as well as claims of West Virginia municipalities and the Native American tribes. In connection with the matters described above, the Company recorded additional charges of $112 million ($93 million after-tax) and $186 million ($155 million after-tax) in the three and six months ended September 30, 2021 within “Claims and litigation charges, net” in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations, in connection with the proposed settlement agreement and other opioid related settlement accruals.

The Company’s estimated accrued liability for opioid-related claims of governmental entities is as follows as of September 30, 2021:


(In millions)	September 30, 2021
Current litigation liabilities (1)	$	1,072
Long-term litigation liabilities	7,146

Total litigation liabilities	$	8,218

(1)This amount, recorded in “Other accrued liabilities” in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet, is the amount estimated to be paid prior to September 30, 2022.

If a broad settlement is not reached under the proposed agreement, litigation will continue. The Company continues to prepare for trial in these pending matters, and believes that it has valid defenses to the claims pending against it, and it intends to vigorously defend against all such claims if acceptable settlement terms are not achieved.

Although the vast majority of opioid claims have been brought by governmental entities in the U.S., the Company is also a defendant in cases brought in the U.S. by private plaintiffs, such as hospitals, health and welfare funds, third-party payors, and individuals, as well as four cases brought in Canada (three by governmental or tribal entities and one by an individual). These claims, and those of private entities generally, are not included in the settlement framework for governmental entities, or in the charges recorded by the Company, described above. The Company believes it has valid legal defenses in these matters and intends to mount a vigorous defense. One such case brought by a group of individual plaintiffs in Glynn County, Georgia Superior Court seeks to recover for damages allegedly arising from their family members’ abuse of prescription opioids. Poppell v. Cardinal Health, Inc. et al., CE19-00472. The Company has not concluded a loss is probable in any of these matters; nor is the amount of any loss reasonably estimable.

Because of the many uncertainties associated with any potential settlement arrangement or other resolution of all of these opioid-related litigation matters, including the uncertain scope of participation by governmental entities in any potential settlement under the framework described above, the Company is not able to reasonably estimate the upper or lower ends of the range of ultimate possible loss for all opioid-related litigation matters. 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.

In December 2019, the Company was served with two qui tam complaints filed by the same two relators alleging violations of the federal False Claims Act, the California False Claims Act, and the California Unfair Business Practices statute based on alleged predicate violations of the Controlled Substances Act and its implementing regulations, United States ex rel. Kelley, 19-cv-2233, and State of California ex rel. Kelley, CGC-19-576931. The complaints seek relief including treble damages, civil penalties, attorney fees, and costs in unspecified amounts. On February 16, 2021, the court in the federal action dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice, and the relators appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On June 28, 2021, the court in the state action dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and the relators appealed the dismissal to the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco.

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 October 8, 2021, the Court de-certified the class citing the plaintiffs lacked class-wide proof identifying the manner of receipt; the October 18, 2021 trial date has been vacated.

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.

IV. State Opioid Statutes

Legislative, regulatory or industry measures to address the misuse of prescription opioid medications could affect the Company’s business in ways that it may not be able to predict. For example, in April 2018, the State of New York adopted the Opioid Stewardship Act (the “OSA”) which required the creation of an aggregate $100 million annual surcharge on all manufacturers and distributors licensed to sell or distribute opioids in New York. The initial surcharge payment would have been due on January 1, 2019 for opioids sold or distributed during calendar year 2017. On July 6, 2018, the Healthcare Distribution Alliance filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law and seeking an injunction against its enforcement. On December 19, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found the law unconstitutional and issued an injunction preventing the State of New York from enforcing the law. The State appealed that decision. On September 14, 2020, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s decision on procedural grounds. The Company has accrued a $50 million pre-tax charge ($37 million after-tax) as its estimated share of the OSA surcharge for calendar years 2017 and 2018. This OSA provision was recognized in “Selling, distribution, general, and administrative expenses” in the Consolidated Statement of Operations for the year ended March 31, 2021 and in “Other accrued liabilities” in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2021. The State of New York adopted an excise tax on sales of opioids in the State, which became effective July 1, 2019. The law adopting the excise tax made clear that the OSA does not apply to sales or distributions occurring after December 31, 2018. The Healthcare Distribution Alliance filed a petition for panel rehearing, or, in the alternative, for rehearing en banc with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; that petition was denied on December 18, 2020. On February 12, 2021, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit granted a motion by the Healthcare Distribution Alliance to stay its mandate pending the filing and disposition of a petition for writ of certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court. The petition was denied on October 4, 2021.